alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012287EN.01001802.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 21 June 2012 — Guido Imfeld, Nathalie Garcet v État belge

(Case C-303/12)

2012/C 287/33

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Guido Imfeld, Nathalie Garcet

Applicants:

Defendant: État belge

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 39 [EC] that, as a result of the provision made under the Belgian tax system, specifically under Article 155 of the 1992 Income Tax Code and the second subparagraph of Article 134(1) of that Code, and regardless of whether Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, the income earned in Germany by the first applicant — which is exempt from tax [in Belgium] pursuant to Article 17 of the Convention concluded between Germany and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation — is taken into account for the purposes of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and is used as the basis of assessment for the grant of tax advantages provided for under the 1992 Income Tax Code, and those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance because of the first applicant’s family circumstances, are reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if the income of both applicants were earned in Belgium and if the higher income were that earned by the second applicant, rather than by the first applicant, whereas, in Germany, the income of the first applicant is taxed as though he were a single person and he is accordingly not entitled to all the tax advantages linked to his personal and family circumstances, of which the German tax authorities take account only in part?

---
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 04 8 . CHARLES J . MORGAN v . AMY E. STONE.

Th e ap p eal i n th i s cas e was d o ck et ed o n Au g u st 2 8 , 2 0 1 5

. Ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef

an d en u m erat i on o f erro rs were d u e o n Sep t em b er 1 7 , 2 0 15

. On Sep t em

b er 2 4 , 2 0 1 5,
t h i s Co u rt o rd ered Ap p el l an t t o fi l e hi s b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f erro rs n o l at er t h an Oct o b er 5 , 2 0 1 5 . As o f t h e d at e o f t h i s Ord er, ap p el l an t’ s b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f

erro rs h av e n o t b een fi l ed

. Acco rd i n g l y, t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y di s m i s s ed as ab an do n ed

. See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 3 (a); Rees e v. St a t e , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 3 (4 5 6 SE2 d 2 7 1) (1 9 9 5).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/23/2015 November 23, 2015
# C_2017078EN.01004203.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/42

---

Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Amitié v EACEA

(Case T-59/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 078/59)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
No. 96-5931.

#### Eyoum *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 40445.

#### Protest 960946-G of Stickney & Poor Spice Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of savory leaves similar to those involved in Abstract 37436. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1722 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6419

KEREEM RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BETSY JIVIDEN; J.T. BINION; JESSICA THORNHILL; PRIMECARE 

MEDICAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-01357)

Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kereem Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Murray, ANSPACH MEEKS 

ELLENBERGER PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Anne Liles O’Hare, OFFUTT 

NORD, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kereem Randolph seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. The 

district court entered its dismissal order on January 3, 2020. Randolph filed his notice of 

appeal, at the latest, on March 23, 2020. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal as 

untimely. Randolph, however, claimed that he never received a copy of the district court’s 

order, and there is some evidence in the record supporting this assertion.

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an 

appeal for a 14-day period if: (1) the movant did not receive proper notice of the entry of 

the judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the motion to reopen the appeal period is filed 

within 180 days after the order is entered or within 14 days after the movant receives proper 

notice of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d). Because Randolph claimed that he did not 

receive a copy of the court’s order, and he filed the notice of appeal within 180 days after 

entry of the order, we construe Randolph’s notice of appeal as a motion to reopen the appeal 

period under Rule 4(a)(6). We remand to the district court to determine whether the appeal 

period should be reopened. The record, as supplemented, will be returned to this court for 

further consideration.

REMANDED
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                          |  |                              
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Avanex Cayman                             |  | Cayman Islands               
|                                          | 
|Avanex Communication Technologies Co. Ltd |  | China                        
|                                          | 
|Avanex France S.A.                        |  | France                       
|                                          | 
|Avanex International Corporation          |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Avanex U.S.A. Corporation                 |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|LambdaFlex, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Pearl Acquisition Corp.                   |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Avanex (Thailand) Limited                 |  | Thailand
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Li Xiangqian, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of China BAK Battery, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2005; 

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small businessissuer’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

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 22, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9114]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 35020]


Northern and Bergen Railroad, L.L.C.--Acquisition Exemption--a 
Line of Railroad Owned by New York & Greenwood Lake Railway

    Northern and Bergen Railroad, L.L.C. (NBR), a noncarrier, has filed 
a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire (by purchase) 1.1 
miles of rail line from the New York & Greenwood Lake Railway. The line 
to be acquired extends from milepost 0.0, at or near the connection 
with the track of Norfolk Southern Railway Company in the Borough of 
Garfield, Bergen County, NJ, to milepost 1.1, at or near the 
intersection of South and Fourth Streets in the City of Passaic, 
Passaic County, NJ.
    NBR certifies that the projected annual freight revenues as a 
result of this transaction will not exceed the amounts that would 
qualify it as a Class III railroad.
    The earliest this transaction may be consummated is May 26, 2007, 
the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was 
filed). NBR indicates that it intends to consummate the transaction on 
or before May 31, 2007, but not before May 26, 2007.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. 
Petitions for stay must be filed no later than May 18, 2007 (at least 7 
days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 35020, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on Jeffrey O. Moreno, Esq., 
Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-
1600.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: May 4, 2007.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9114 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                2,406,643
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                         5,344,238
<ALLOWANCES>                           (383,728)
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      8,696,030
<PP&E>                                5,530,524
<DEPRECIATION>                       (1,853,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       23,042,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 6,561,349
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                  10
<COMMON>                                 66,000
<OTHER-SE>                           15,218,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         23,042,582
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     34,326,146
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        22,122,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     12,169,441
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        504,821
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       74,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         506,476
<INCOME-TAX>                            312,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     194,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            194,112
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.03


</TABLE>
No. 74-938.

#### Lausche *v.*Commissioner of Public Welfare et al.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 44309.

#### Protests 981099-G, etc., of Cox & Fahner et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of clipper blades similar to those the subject of *Hayes*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 146 C. D. 308). The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 356 was therefore sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5125-N-20] 

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 18, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Mark R. Johnston, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. E7-9340 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 21, 2018

NO. 03

- 18

- 00428

- CV

Yvonne Brown, Appellant

v.

Coffee Traders, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO O DWIN, AND BOURLAND
REVERSED AND REMANDED

— OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on June 7, 2018 . Having reviewed

the re cord and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the

court’s order

. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s order and remands the case to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion . T he appellee shall pay

all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
# C_2013225EN.01005502.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/55

---

Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-465/12 P)

2013/C 225/103

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Plamen Simov

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 21 March 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.

---
----

Exhibit 31.2

| 1. | I      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Internap Network      Services Corporation; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a materialfact      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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:               | /s/      George      Kilguss                    |   |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |              | George      Kilguss                             |   |
|   |              | Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |              |                                            |   |
|   |              |                                            |   |
|   | June      5, 2008 |                                            |

*           Paragraph3 is omitted because the amendment does not amend the financialstatements.  Paragraphs 4 and 5 are omitted because the amendment doesnot amend the Reg. S-K Item 307 and 308 disclosures regarding the evaluation ofdisclosure control sand procedures and internal controls over financialreporting.
**FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of December 18, 2008, is entered into by and between Mannatech, Incorporated (the “Company”) and Stephen D. Fenstermacher (“Employee”).

**RECITALS**

This Amendment amends that certain Employment Agreement, effective as of October 5, 2007, by and between the Company and Employee (the “Employment Agreement”).

**STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT**

**NOW**, **THEREFORE**, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1.         The first sentence of Section 1.2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

“The Employee shall serve as Executive President Global Chief Financial Officer of the Company, with the authority, duties and responsibilities described herein and those customarily incident to such office.”

2.         This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

3.         This Amendment and the Employment Agreement and the documents referred to herein and therein constitute the entire agreement among the parties and supersede in all respects any other agreement or understanding among the parties.  No party shall be liable or bound to any other party in any manner by any warranties, representations, or covenants except as specifically set forth herein or therein.

4.         In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Amendment should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

5.         This Amendment shall be governed by, and enforced and construed under, the laws of the State of Texas.

**[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]**

 

----
No. 96-7813.

#### Philips *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.