alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012138EN.01003301.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/33

---

Action brought on 4 February 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors

(Case F-14/12)

(2012/C 138/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decisions not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 26 May 2011 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 26 May 2011 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure;

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 18 November 2011 confirming the number of posts available for promotion to grade AD 13 in 2011, with the result that the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 26 May 2011 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 18 November 2011 confirming the number of posts available for promotion to grade AD 13 in 2011, with the result that the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 26 May 2011 was rejected;

| — | order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

---
Before the Third Division,

September 18, 1940

No. 44328.

#### Protest 17962-K of A. Diener & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kraft*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) it was held that duty should have been computed on the net weight of the cheese and the protest was sustained accordingly.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

9 v. NO. 29,460

10 KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, 

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

13 Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge

14 Gary K. King, Attorney General

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender

18 Nancy M. Hewitt, Assistant Appellate Defender

19 Santa Fe, NM

20 for Appellant

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 VIGIL, Judge.
2

1 Defendant appeals the district court denial of his motion to vacate a

2 dismissal of charges. Defendant urged the district court to make the dismissal with

3 prejudice 
3

1 rather than without prejudice. We proposed to dismiss the appeal on the grounds

2 that Defendant was not aggrieved by the order. Defendant has timely responded. 

3 We have considered his arguments and not being persuaded, we dismiss the appeal.

4 Defendant argues that this Court is incorrect in proposing to conclude that he

5 is not an aggrieved party. He argues that a dismissal with prejudice is very

6 different from a dismissal without prejudice. We agree. However, as we pointed

7 out in our notice, charging decisions are the sole province of the prosecutor. See

8 State v. Gonzales, 2002-NMCA-071, ¶ 18, 132 N.M. 420, 49 P.3d 681 (discussing

9 the duty of the district attorney regarding charging decisions and the broad

10 discretion given to the district attorney in those matters). 

11 Further, as recognized by Defendant, any further prosecution on these

12 charges is time-barred. See NMSA 1978, § 30-1-8(C) (2009) (stating time limit for

13 commencing prosecution of misdemeanor). In all practicality because the charges

14 were not reinstated within the statute of limitations, Defendant is not aggrieved by

15 the district court order denying his motion.

16 For the reasons stated herein and in the notice of proposed disposition, we

17 dismiss the appeal. 
4

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 

3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

4 WE CONCUR:

5 

6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

7 

8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
# C_2014439EN.01000601.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad

(Case C-299/13) (1)

1

((Taxation - Directive 2008/7/EC - Articles 5(2) and 6 - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Tax on the conversion of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities))

(2014/C 439/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Isabelle Gielen

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerraad

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities such as that at issue in the main proceedings. Such a tax cannot be justified under Article 6 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
No. A-684.

#### Maroe *v.*Procunier, Corrections Director, et al.

D. C. C. D. Cal. Application for bail, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women's Occupations Through Seven Decades

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Hooks, Janet M. (Janet Montgomery). 						*Women's Occupations Through Seven Decades : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 218*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1947,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5489,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
No. 74-5983.

#### LaPlante *v.*Wolff, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Al Kozak, the Chief Executive Officer of SmarTire Systems, Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of SmarTire Systems, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual 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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occured during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and


October 28, 2005                                /s/ Al Kozak
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Al Kozak, CEO
EXHIBIT 3.5

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                    TOUPS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, INCORPORATED


         Pursuant to Section 607.1006 of the Florida Business Corporation Act.

         Toups Technology Licensing Incorporated, as corporation organized and
existing under the Florida Business Corporation Act (the "Corporation") hereby
certifies that the following amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Corporation on May 15, 2000 pursuant to authority of the Board of Directors
as required by Section 607.1001 of the Florida Business Corporation Act, and
accordingly, pursuant to Section 607.1004 of the Florida Business Corporation
Act, the Corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to articles of
incorporation.

         Article I - Name is hereby amended to read:

                                ARTICLE I - NAME

         The name of this Corporation is EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated

         Article III - Capital Stock, paragraph one of this article relating
solely to common stock, is amended to delete the existing first paragraph in
Article III and substitute in its place the following so that this first
paragraph now reads:

         This corporation is authorized to issue 100,000,000 (one-hundred
million) shares of Common Stock having a par value of $0.0001 (one,
one-thousandth dollar) per share which shares will be and hereby are designated
as "Common Shares". Without action by the shareholders, any or all of the
authorized shares may be issued by the Corporation from time to time for such
consideration as may be fixed by the Board of Directors of this Corporation. No
shareholders approval is needed for this action.

         All remaining Articles of Incorporation of EARTHFIRST TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATION (formerly TOUPS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, INCORPORATED) remain
unchanged.

         Adopted at a Meeting of the Board of Directors held May 15, 2000.



                                        /s/ LEON H. TOUPS
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Leon H. Toups
                                        President and Chairman of the
                                        Board of Directors
No. 48145.

#### Protest 879485-G of Wm. Dixon, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is honing stones the same as those the subject of Abstract 36742 the claim for free entry under paragraph 1692 was sustained.
No. 46415.

#### Protest 48516-K of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tablecloths wholly or in chief value of rayon, countervailing duty was held not applicable to certain of the items in question. *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) followed.
# C_2013225EN.01003802.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/38

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil constitutionnel — France) — Jeremy F v Premier ministre

(Case C-168/13 PPU) (1)

1

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Speciality rule - Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State - Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent - Appeal with suspensive effect - Whether permitted)

2013/C 225/65

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil constitutionnel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jeremy F

Applicant:

Defendant: Premier ministre

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil constitutionnel — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 28 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Extension of the effects of a European arrest warrant — Existence in the requested Member State of an appeal against the decision of the executing judicial authority, in this case the indictment division of a court of appeal — Period of 30 days

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding Member States from providing for an appeal suspending execution of the decision of the judicial authority which rules, within 30 days from receipt of the request, on giving consent either to the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order of a person for an offence committed prior to his surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant, other than that for which he was surrendered, or to the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his surrender, provided that the final decision is adopted within the time-limits laid down in Article 17 of the Framework Decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
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 # 10785 and # 10786]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated 1/16/2007. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         10/15/2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         1/16/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         3/19/2007. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/16/2007.
 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: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Hardin, Newton. *Contiguous Counties:* Texas Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange, Polk, Sabine, Tyler Louisiana: Beauregard, Calcasieu, Sabine, Vernon The Interest Rates are: Percent*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere:*
6.250.*Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere:*
3.125.*Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere:*
7.934.*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere:*
4.000.*Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere:*
5.000.*Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere:*
4.000.
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10785 B and for economic injury is 10786 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Texas, Louisiana. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: January 16, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator.


[FR Doc. E7-962 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1704 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify certain authorities relating 

to the strategic airlift aircraft force structure of the Air Force. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 13, 2011 

Ms. AYOTTE (for herself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify certain 

authorities relating to the strategic airlift aircraft force 

structure of the Air Force. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strategic Airlift Force 

5 Structure Reform Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STRATEGIC AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT FORCE STRUCTURE 

7 OF THE AIR FORCE. 

8 Section 8062(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1704 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Effective October 1, 2009, the 

2 Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘The Secretary’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘316 aircraft’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘301 aircraft’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### H. W. Robinson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6844.

Entry No. 703824.

Invoice dated London, England, June 1945.

Certified June 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 28, 1945.

(Decided February 6, 1947)

*Mary Rehan*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

This appeal was filed for the purpose of testing the validity of the action of the appraiser in including as a part of the dutiable values of the *372merchandise the amount of the so-called British purchase tax. Counsel for the parties in submitting this case have agreed that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues which were involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence herein.

Upon the agreed facts and the law applicable thereto, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then- pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2014395EN.01002002.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — Sofia Zoo v Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

(Case C-532/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Regulation (EC) No 338/97 - Article 11 - Invalidity of an import permit restricted to the specimens of animals actually affected by the ground of invalidity))

(2014/C 395/25)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sofia Zoo

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Főfelügyelőség

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein must be interpreted as meaning that an import permit which does not comply with the conditions laid down in that regulation must be considered void only in respect of the specimens actually affected by the ground of invalidity of that import permit, those specimens then being the only ones which may be seized and possibly confiscated by the competent authority of the Member State where they are situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---