alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014409EN.01002202.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/22

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-290/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 59 and Annex XIII - Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure - Equal treatment))

2014/C 409/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
# C_2015046EN.01001402.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-590/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Articles 18 and 22 - Right to deduct - Intra-Community acquisitions - Reverse charge procedure - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Failure to comply with the formal requirements))

(2015/C 046/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as containing formal requirements relating to the right to deduct, failure to comply with which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, cannot result in the loss of that right.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00345

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S .M.P.M. and N.J.M., Jr., Children

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 00964

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s termination order is

AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant S.C. because s he is indigent.

SIGNED November 13, 2019.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

1 The Honorable Genie Wright signed the order that is the subject of the appeal.
Exhibit 10.75


AMENDMENT TO THE


CARNIVAL CORPORATION 


2001 OUTSIDE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN


 


 


The Carnival Corporation 2001 Outside Director Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective October 17, 2007, as follows (deletions struck through, additions bold and underlined):


 



	
            1.
 	
            Section 8(b) of the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:
 



 


Vesting.  Subject to Section 8(e), Options shall vest and become exercisable in five equal annual installments commencing full on the first third anniversary of the Date of Grant.



	
            2.
 	
            Section 9(c) of the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:
 



 


Restricted Period.  The Restricted Period of Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Unit Awards granted to any Participant shall commence on the Date of Grant and shall expire as to twenty one-hundred percent (2100%) of the Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units, as applicable, subject thereto on each of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth anniversaryies of the Date of Grant whether or not such Participant continues to be a member of the Board; provided, however, that upon a Participant’s
ceasing to be a member of the Board due to death or Disability, the Restricted Period shall expire as to one hundred percent (100%) of the Shares subject thereto.
FINAL VERSION |31-July-12

Task 1 Deliverable – Materials for OMB ICR Submission

C-1

Dear _______________,

You have been selected as one of a small number of [teachers/principals/school board 

members/district administrators] in your state to provide feedback to REL Midwest, which is one of 

ten Regional Educational Laboratories funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Each REL serves 

a designated region of the country and focuses on the national priority of helping states and 

districts use data and analysis to address relevant and timely education policy and practice issues 

with the goal of improving student outcomes. Your feedback is critical because it will help REL 

Midwest refine its understanding of regional needs and inform its future research, technical 

assistance, and dissemination work.

The survey is being conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago and is expected to take 

approximately 20 minutes to complete. You may access the survey by typing the following URL into 

your Web browser: https://aaa.bbbbbb.org. You will then need to enter your credentials to begin:

Username: 

Password: 

Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part 

E, Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The 

reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate 

responses with a specific district or individual. We will not provide information that identifies you or 

your district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Any willful disclosure of 

such information for nonstatistical purposes, without the informed consent of the respondent, is a 

class E felony. Please contact a NORC representative at XXX-XXX-XXXX if you wish to decline to 

participate, and we will remove you from our contact list so that you do not receive reminders to 

complete the survey.

Thank you,

Kathleen Parks

Senior Vice President

NORC at the University of Chicago

P.S. You can learn more about REL Midwest and the services it provides to educators in your state 

by visiting the website at http://www.relmidwest.org/ or by calling the REL Midwest hotline at 866-

730-6735.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

WILLIAM STEPHEN ABBOTT
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2260

[ January 25, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2016

- CF

008600

- AXXX

- MB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepc ion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 49466.

#### Protest 100109-K of Philip Flanagan Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 10, 2001 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 98-9169

_______________ D. C. Docket No. 97-03266-1-CV-MHS
LAURA JEANNE JONES, WILLIAM LEONARD JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus
NORDICTRACK, INC., NORDICTRACK FITNESS AT HOME, Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

______________________________ (October 10, 2001) Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.2 PER CURIAM: In Jones v. NordicTrack, Inc. , 236 F.3d 658 (11th Cir. 2000), we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia: “Must a product be in use at the time of injury for a defendant to be held liable for defective design under theories of strict liability, neglig ence, or failure to warn?” Id. at 661. The Supreme Court of Georgia responded as follows: The answer is that in a products liab ility action for defective design the focus is not on use of the product. Under Georgia law, the proper analysis in a design defect case is to balance the risks inherent in a product design against the utility of the product so designed. Jones v. NordicTrack, Inc. , __ S.E.2d __ (2001). The Georgia Supreme Court thus made clear that product “use” is not a n ecessary predicate to liability in design defect cases, and the court further explained that the appropriate analysis instead entails a weighing of the risk/utility factors enunciated in Banks v. ICI Americas , 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994). Id. at __. In granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of NordicTrack, Inc. and NordicTrack Fitness at Home (“Nordic Track”), the district judge focused exclusively on whether Plaintiff-Appellant Laura Jones was using the product at the time of her accident. Jones v. Nordictrack, Inc. , R1-17-3 (N.D. Ga. May 7,3 1998). Finding that the product was not in “use” when Jones suffered her injury, the district judge treated this determination as dispositive of Jones’s design defect claims and declined to balance the risk/utility factors laid down in Banks . Id. at 6. Consequently, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of NordicTrack and RE MAND with instructions that the district court employ the Banksrisk/utility balancing test in reconsideration of whether NordicTrack’s motion should be granted.
#### Ellen E. Dillard, Respondent, v Thomas A. Dillard, Appellant.

[611 NYS2d 590]

—In an action to enforce a Texas divorce judgment, brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 as a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 21, 1992, which, upon granting the motion, awarded the plaintiff $30,000, plus interest and costs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the action is dismissed.

Since the defendant was never a domiciliary of Texas, and had no connections with that State, the Texas divorce judgment is divisible, and that portion of the judgment which directed him to pay $30,000 to the plaintiff wife should not have been afforded full faith and credit *(see, Vanderbilt v Vanderbilt,*354 US 416; *Estin v Estin,*334 US 541; *Peterson v Goldberg,*180 AD2d 260, 262-263; *Lansford v Lansford,*96 AD2d 832). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.4


SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), I, Diane M. Morefield, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 12, 2014


/s/ Diane M. MorefieldDiane M. MorefieldChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 Time Warner Telecom Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Larissa L. Herda, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or
78o(d)); and

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



|                     |  |                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ Larissa L. Herda
|Name:                |  | Larissa L. Herda
|                     | 
|Date:                |  | March 16, 2006
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2010 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 

pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 

Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fair5 ness Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVI7 SION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the Social Secu9 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking para10 graph (5). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2010 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub4 sections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

5 (q)’’. 

6 (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections 

8 (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

9 (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub11 section (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and inserting ‘‘sub12 section (q)’’. 

13 (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

14 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection 

15 (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

16 (q)’’. 

17 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security 

19 Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended— 

20 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); 

21 (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); 

22 and 

23 (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). 

24 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsections (e)(2) 

25 and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2010 IS

1 each amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), 

2 or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and in3 serting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’. 

4 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

6 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

7 II of the Social Security Act for months after December 

8 2011. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Secu9 rity Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 

10 primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 

11 into account the amendments made by section 3. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2014315EN.01004603.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/46

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

(Case C-451/13) (1)

1

2014/C 315/78

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
# C_2014409EN.01001702.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat

(Case C-489/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of income from immovable property received in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - Method of exemption with maintenance of progressivity in the Member State of residence - Difference in treatment between immovable property situated in the Member State of residence and in another Member State))

2014/C 409/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ronny Verest and Gaby Gerards

Appellants:

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it is liable to lead, when a progressivity clause contained in a convention for the prevention of double taxation is applied, to a higher rate of tax on income merely because the method for determining income from immovable property results in income deriving from immovable property that is not rented out situated in another Member State being assessed at a higher amount than income from such property situated in the first Member State. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is in fact the effect of the legislation at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

1

---
**Exhibit 21**

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

| **Name**                              |   | **Jurisdiction in which incorporated** |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                        |
| Tempress   Systems, Inc.              |   | State of   Texas                       |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| Tempress   Holdings B.V.              |   | The   Netherlands                      |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| Tempress   Systems B.V.               |   | The Netherlands                        |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| Tempress   Manufacturing B.V.         |   | The   Netherlands                      |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| Tempress   Engineering B.V.           |   | The   Netherlands                      |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| P.R. Hoffman   Machine Products, Inc. |   | State of   Arizona                     |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| Bruce   Technologies, Inc.            |   | State of   Massachusetts               |
|                                  |   |                                   |
| Bruce   Technologies Europe GmbH      |   | Federal   Republic of Germany          |
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit 11.1 - Statement Regarding Computation of Per share Earnings

(Unaudited)
(in thousands except per share data)
<S>                               <C>                     <C>                     <C>                    <C>
                                  Three Months Ended      Three Months Ended          Year Ended             Year Ended
                                  September 30, 1999      September 30, 1998      September 30, 1999     September 30, 1998
                                  ------------------      ------------------      ------------------     ------------------
Basic
  Average Common Shares
  outstanding                              4,513                   4,495                    4,506                 4,107

Net income available to
  Common shareholders                        309                    (145)                     570                   412

Per share amount                          $  .07                  $ (.03)                  $  .13                $  .10

Diluted
     Average Common Shares
     outstanding                           4,513                   4,495                    4,506                 4,117

     Net effect of dilutive
     stock  options  based
     on the Treasury  stock
     method using the average
     market price                            172                     140                      170                   172

Assumed conversion of                          -                     752                        -                   114
  Preferred Shares

Total                                      4,685                   4,635                    4,676                 4,403

Net income available to                   $  309                  $ (145)                  $  570                $  412
  common shareholders

Per share amount                          $  .07                  $ (.03)                  $  .12                $  .09

</TABLE>