alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012355EN.01000802.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Prešov Regional Court) lodged on 3 August 2012 — G.I.C. Cash, a.s. v Marián Gunčaga

(Case C-373/12)

2012/C 355/13

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: G.I.C. Cash, a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: Marián Gunčaga

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) (‘the Charter’), in conjunction with Article 38 thereof, together with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court in a dispute on a consumer contract is assessing whether a contract term is unacceptable and a court of another Member State has already manifestly held, in comparable factual circumstances, that a contract term with a similar or identical content is unacceptable, the consumer has the right that the court, for the purposes of the assessment of whether the contract term at issue is unacceptable, takes into account that judgment of the court of the other Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) (‘the Charter’), in conjunction with Article 38 thereof, together with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court in a dispute on a consumer contract is assessing whether a contract term is unacceptable and a court of another Member State has already manifestly held, in comparable factual circumstances, that a contract term with a similar or identical content is unacceptable, the consumer has the right that the court, for the purposes of the assessment of whether the contract term at issue is unacceptable, takes into account that judgment of the court of the other Member State?

1

2

| 2. | Where the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the court infringe the fundamental right of the consumer under Article 47 of the Charter in conjunction with Article 38 thereof where it does not take into account the manifest judgment of the court of the other Member State on the unacceptability of a contract term with a similar or identical content? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the court infringe the fundamental right of the consumer under Article 47 of the Charter in conjunction with Article 38 thereof where it does not take into account the manifest judgment of the court of the other Member State on the unacceptability of a contract term with a similar or identical content?

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

2

---
(Reap. Dec. 9647)

#### Bert Friedberg & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5574, etc.

(Decided March 24, 1960)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran DouT),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying eases which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers, in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, are the unit prices shown in attached Schedule A, in U.S. currency, net, packed, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and the said appeals for re-appraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise herein involved, and that such values were the unit prices as shown in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made part of our decision herein, in United States currency, net, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 92-8088.

#### Kamaka et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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

     In connection with the quarterly report of Global Realty  Development Corp.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Roger Davis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (3)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



Date:  August 14, 2006                   By: /s/ Roger Davis
                                         -------------------
                                         Roger Davis
                                         Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012273EN.01000502.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/5

---

Action brought on 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-296/12)

2012/C 273/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by approving and maintaining in force tax relief on pension savings in so far as this applies only to payments to Belgian institutions and Belgian funds, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 56 and 63 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by approving and maintaining in force tax relief on pension savings in so far as this applies only to payments to Belgian institutions and Belgian funds, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 56 and 63 thereof;

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

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the failure to grant tax relief for payments to institutions which are established in another Member State, while tax relief is available for payments to institutions established in Belgium, constitutes an impediment to the free movement of services both for recipients of those services and for providers which are not established in Belgium.

Likewise the Commission takes the view that the failure to grant tax relief for deposits in individual or collective accounts or payments of premiums for life insurance contracts with and to institutions established in another Member State, while tax relief is available for similar deposits with and payments to institutions established in Belgium, constitutes an impediment to the free movement of capital in the sense that Belgian depositors and policyholders are discouraged from holding deposits or taking out life insurance with an institution that is not established in Belgium because those deposits or life insurance contracts do not attract tax relief and are consequently less advantageous.

Those impediments are, according to the Commission, not justified on any grounds.

---
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #10859] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Maine (FEMA-1693-DR), dated 04/25/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         04/15/2007 through 04/23/2007.                     

*Effective Date:*                         05/04/2007.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/25/2007.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Maine, dated 04/25/2007, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/15/2007 and continuing through 04/23/2007. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-9486 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2012138EN.01003603.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/36

---

Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-30/12)

(2012/C 138/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 of 13 April 2011 concerning the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 of 13 April 2011 concerning the applicant;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 49482.

#### Protests 100356-K, etc., of Milton Snedeker Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 23.2

LOGO

Consent of Independent Appraisal Firm

We hereby consent to the reference to Sheldrick, McGehee & Kohler, LLC and to the incorporation of information contained in our Valuation Report dated January 12, 2009 in the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of The PBSJ Corporation for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, to which this consent is an exhibit.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Steven R. Smith  
|Steven R. Smith      
|Senior Vice President
|Jacksonville, FL     
|February 17, 2009    

One Independent Drive Suite 3140    Jacksonville, Florida 32202    Telephone 904.355.4715    Facsimile 904.355.4717    
www.smki.net
### cost estimation methods for SCR Don_ Shepherd Shepherd Shepherd to: david.hurlbut, Anita Lee,

Patricia_F_Brewer 09/29/2011 03:51 PM 1 attachment

updated NPS SCR modified Cost manual approach for NGS #2.xlsx

Folks, Here is my SCR cost estimation method applied to NG S#2: (See attached file: updated NPS SCR modified Cost m anual approach for NGS #2.xlsx) The only difference is that i used CAM data for 200 0 - 2009 because the combustion controls were added in 2010. Don Shepherd National Park Service Air Resources Division 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy. Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: 303-969-2075 Fax: 303-969-2822 E-Mail: don_shepherd@nps.gov
Dismiss; Opinion Filed October 28, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00657-CV

ANGELA NAILS, Appellant

V.

MARK FRELS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-15238

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Fillmore, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Appellant, acting pro se, filed a brief in this case on September 17, 2014. The Court sent 

a letter to appellant on October 6, 2014, and advised her that her brief did not satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The letter listed multiple 

deficiencies with appellant’s brief. The letter also informed appellant that her appeal might be 

dismissed without further notice if she failed to file an amended brief complying with our rules.

Rather than filing an amended brief, appellant sent a letter to the Court stating: “I will not 

be updating my brief into an amended brief. . . . I want the court to use the brief already mail 

[sic] to the Court of Appeals.” Because appellant did not file an amended brief and the brief she 
–2–

did file does not comply with our rules, we dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1, 

42.3(c). 

140657F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ANGELA NAILS, Appellant

No. 05-14-00657-CV V.

MARK FRELS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-15238.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Brown 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee Mark Frels recover his costs of this appeal from appellant 

Angela Nails.

Judgment entered this 28th day of October, 2015.
Exhibit 32.1





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


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This
certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the
United States Code and shall not be relied on by any other person for any other
purpose.





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internap Network Services
Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, James P. DeBlasio, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies that







·
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and·
            information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.




Date:
March 28, 2008




/s/ James
      P. DeBlasioJames
      P. DeBlasio
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2013026EN.01007003.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/70

---

Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-105/12)

2013/C 26/143

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to her by the decision annulled by that judgment

Knöll

Europol

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 20 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which she suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 20 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which she suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative.

---
May 7, 1951

No. 55537.

Suit 4640.

#### United States *v.*Kung Chen Fur Corp.

C. D. 1203 affirmed February 27, 1951. C. A. D. 447.
Exhibit 32.1



RITA Medical Systems, Inc.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RITA Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph DeVivo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of RITA Medical Systems Inc.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                                    
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|
| | 
| |  | /S/    JOSEPH
DEVIVO                               
| |  | Joseph DeVivo President and Chief Executive Officer



March
15, 2006



A signed original of this written statement as
required by Section 906 has been provided to RITA Medical Systems, Inc. and will be retained by RITA Medical Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.4




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas C. Shrake, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)           The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
  October 4, 2010                                                                “Thomas C. Shrake”
 Thomas C. Shrake
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Before the United States Department of Transportation

October 19 , 2011

Essential Air Service at

JONESBORO , ARKANSAS

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. Docket OST

- 1997

- 2935



# Withdrawal of Proposals by SeaPort Airlines, Inc. to

Provide Essential Air Service at Jonesboro , Arkansas

SeaPort Airlines respectfully withdraws its proposal to provide essential air service at

Jones boro, Arkansas that was submitted to the above referenced Docket on July 21, 2011.

Correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to:

Timothy Sieber

Vice President

– Strategy & Corporate Development

SeaPort Airlines, Inc.

7505 NE Airport Way

Portland, OR 97218

(971) 340

- 1716

tsieber@seaportair.com
No. 48821.

#### Protest 101392-K/12620 of New Orleans Grain *&*Feed Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of corn-feed meal containing bran, used for animal feed and not for human consumption, it was held dutiable at 5 percent under paragraph 730 and T. D. 49752 as claimed.