alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014431EN.01000501.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/5

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhеn sad — Тargоvishte — Bulgaria) — ‘Parva Investitsionna Banka’ AD, ‘UniKredit Bulbank’ AD, ‘Siyk Faundeyshan’ LLS v ‘Ear Proparti Development — v nesastoyatelnost’ AD, Sindik na ‘Ear Proparti Development — v nesastoyatelnost’ AD

(Case C-488/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Definition of ‘uncontested pecuniary claims’ - Insolvency proceedings - Extra-judicial enforcement order relating to a contested claim - Claim for payment out of the insolvency estate, on the basis of such an enforcement order - Situation falling outside the scope of Regulation No 1896/2006 - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction))

(2014/C 431/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Okrazhеn sad — Тargоvishte

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘Parva Investitsionna Banka’ AD, ‘UniKredit Bulbank’ AD, ‘Siyk Faundeyshan’ LLS

Applicants:

Defendants:‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ AD, Sindik na ‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ AD

Defendants:

Intervening parties: Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite, ‘Aset Menidzhmant’ EAD, ‘Ol Siyz Balgaria’ OOD, ‘Si Dzhi Ef — aktsionerna obshtnost’ AD, ‘Silvar Biych’ EAD, ‘Rudersdal’ EOOD, ‘Kota Enerdzhi’ EAD, Chavdar Angelov Angelov

Intervening parties:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Okrazhеn sad — Тargоvishte (Bulgaria).

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
#### R. Gsell & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7893,

Entry No. 704037, etc.

(Decided October 13, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked *“A”*and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collec*447tor of customs, constituted bis appraisal of tbe merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 5,593.

#### GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO. v. GATES.

[Cited in Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, Case No. 5,603. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Learn more.hide
No. 74-795.

No. 74-5857.

#### Curbelo-Talvara et al. *v.*United States; and Arias-Diaz et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 497 F. 2d 165.
Flight Session Report

Date: Location: Session #:

Weather: 

Pilot: Spotter:

CamOp: Aircraft:

Completed skipped or NA

Ground Check, Environment Ground Check, Batteries

Check airspace class: 

Check AO NOTAMS

Contact ATC (if neccessary)

Orient to AO (N,S,E,W), “measuring sticks” 

Scan for RF interference

Check weather forecast

Main aircraft batteries balanced and charged

Transmitter batteries balanced and charged

FPV receiver/montor(s) balanced and charged

Ground station batteries charged

Camera batteries charged

Scout and note obstructions

Select and prep LZ, identify bailout LZ(s) 

Ground Check, Aircraft

All screws/bolts are tight

Batteries are securely attached

Antennas are attached and secure

CCW, CW props on CCW,CW motors

Props are secure

Props are not chipped/damaged

Check blades, arms, frame for damage

Wiring tight (nothing loose)

No excessive flexing of motors or booms

Booms/motors will not twist

Center of gravity is correct

Complete power on checklist for items below

Transmitter Range Check

Verify failsafe RTH height is higher than

local obstructions

Takeoff Procedure Landing Procedure

• Announce: "Clear prop"

• Start motors

• Advance throttle to low power (much less than take off level)

• Verify left/right and forward/back stick movement engages

the proper motors

• Announce: "Taking off"

• Advance throttle to ascend to above head level

• Listen for unusual rattles, vibrations

• Verify autopilot lights are communicating correct mode and

status

• Test pitch, roll, and yaw

• Raise landing gear

• PAYATTENTION TO TELEMETRY (esp. battery level)

• Check landing area clear

• Announce: "Returning to land"

• Check for obstacles in flight path

• Lower landing gear

• Orient craft facing away from pilot

• Touchdown, Power down, Motor stop

Power On
No. 43259.

#### Protests 9013-K, etc., of L. Greenberg & Son, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) squawker balloons similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493 at 45 percent under paragraph 409; (2) siren whistles and horns at 45 percent under paragraph 397, Abstracts 39948 and 40480 followed; and (3) so-called cigarette whistles, noisemakers, or novelties in part of bamboo, similar to those the subject of Abstract 39509, at 45 percent paragraph 409.
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-9182) pertaining to the Amendedand Restated 1997 Stock Option Plan of Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated July 14, 2004, except for the effects of the restatement detailed in notes 3 (o), 4, 20, 22 and 30, as to which the date is August 26,2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in the Form 20-F/A for the year ended March 31, 2004. 

 

Ernst & Young 

Hong Kong 

 

September 20, 2005
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John C.K. Sham, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Global-Tech Appliances 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 factnecessary 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; and 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythis Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theCompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’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 are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’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 Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 30, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 3, 2010 

s0526 

Order 

 

June 3, 2010 

140177 

_________________________________________ 

In re Estate of EDWARD BRANNON. 

_________________________________________ 

DEBORAH ERBER, Personal Representative of 

the Estate of EDWARD BRANNON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140177 

 COA: 285470 

Charlevoix CC: 07-054821-NO 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, 

Intervenor, 

and 

KZ PROPERTIES, LLC, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., and CAVANAGH and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
# C_2013108EN.01001702.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/17

---

Action brought on 7 February 2013 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-65/13)

2013/C 108/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Decision [2012/733/EU] of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment and the re-establishment of EURES; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision [2012/733/EU] of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment and the re-establishment of EURES;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment, the European Parliament raises a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union. (1) By adopting the contested decision, the Commission has misused the powers conferred upon it by the European Union legislature.

1

Article 38 of that regulation confers only implementing powers on the Commission, the limits of which are set out in Article 291 TFEU. In the view of the Parliament, that article must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the adoption of acts of general application which supplement certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Only legislative acts or delegated acts within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU may supplement non-essential elements of a basic act.

The act adopted by the Commission, being an implementing act within the meaning of Article 291 TFEU, also supplements certain non-essential elements of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011. Accordingly, the Parliament submits that, if it is necessary to supplement non-essential elements of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011, the Commission, in the absence of powers to adopt delegated acts within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, ought to have made a proposal to the legislature supplementing or amending the basic act.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00563-CR

GILBERTO MIGUEL PEREZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

390th District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-1-DC-16-100279

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 20, 2019
Consent Letter, dated October 12, 2007



 Exhibit 10.16.2 
 Date: 12 October 2007 
 Dear     Managing Director 
      Fabrinet Co., Ltd. 
 Re: Consent Letter 
 With reference to Fabrinet Co., Ltd.’s Memorandum regarding Informing, Waiving and Amending
Loan Conditions and Covenants Between Fabrinet Co., Ltd. and Export-Import Bank of Thailand dated 24 September 2007, now Export-Import Bank of Thailand acknowledges and consents as per item 2.1 of such Memorandum. 
 For your acknowledgement. 
  

	
	 Best Regards,
  
  
 Chana Boonyachai
  
 First Vice President - Business Promotion
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Carreker Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John D. Carreker, Jr., 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:



|                                                                       |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/JOHN D. CARREKER, JR.John D. Carreker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer |  | 

Dated:
April 8, 2004

---

QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________________ AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, Petitioner,

vs. BARACK OBAMA, et al ., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 05-2371 (RCL)

___________________________________________)
SCHEDULING ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Status Report. Based upon the representations of th e parties, it is hereby 1. ORDERED that Petitioner sh all file his Traverse on or before December 10, 2010; 2. ORDERED that Respondents shall file their motion to amend the Factual Return by January 14, 2011; and 3. ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before January 28, 2011, in which they will either:

a. notify the Court that Petitioner intends to move for additional discovery and/or to amend his Tr averse and propose a briefing schedule on that matter; or b. propose a briefing schedule for the pa rties’ cross-motions for judgment on the record. SO ORDERED.

_8/17/2010_____ /s/ Date ROYCE C. LAMBERTH CHIEF JUDGE
# C_2014102EN.01001002.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/10

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-210/13) (1)

1

((Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Concepts of ‘active ingredient’ and ‘combination of active ingredients’ - Adjuvant))

2014/C 102/13

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Applicants:

Defendants: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Concept of ‘active ingredient’ and ‘combination of active ingredients’ — Adjuvant which does not have a therapeutic effect of its own but enhances the therapeutic effect in an antigen.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, just as an adjuvant does not fall within the definition of ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of that provision, so a combination of two substances, namely an active ingredient having therapeutic effects on its own, and an adjuvant which, while enhancing those therapeutic effects, has no therapeutic effect on its own, does not fall within the definition of ‘combination of active ingredients’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2040 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a point of 

order to prohibit an increase or other modification of the public debt 

limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed 

to and is in effect. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2012 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. VITTER, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. THUNE, 

Mr. COBURN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. 

RISCH, and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish 

a point of order to prohibit an increase or other modification of the public debt limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to and is in effect. 

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 ‘‘Budget Before Bor5 rowing Act of 2012’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2040 IS

1 SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF 

2 DEBT LIMIT MODIFICATION. 

3 Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

4 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(g) POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF

7 DEBT LIMIT MODIFICATION.—(1) It shall not be in order 

8 in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider 

9 any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or con10 ference report thereon, to increase or modify the public 

11 debt limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget 

12 has been agreed to and is in effect for the fiscal year dur13 ing which such measure is being considered. 

14 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in 

15 the House of Representatives or the Senate only by the 

16 affirmative vote of two-thirds of its Members, duly chosen 

17 and sworn. 

18 ‘‘(3) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Mem19 bers, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Sen20 ate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 

21 point of order under paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 73-1763.

#### Lukhard, Director, Department of Welfare and Institutions of Virginia *v.*Doe.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Burns*v. *Alcala, ante,*p. 575.
##### 



Exhibit 23 Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Amtech Systems, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-09917,
333-10117 and 333-47098) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-09911, 333-09909, 333-46086, 333-76812 and
333-103101 ) on Form S-8 of Amtech Systems, Inc. of our report dated
January 10, 2005, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Amtech Systems, Inc. as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income
(loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended September 30, 2004, which
report appears in the September 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc. /s/ KPMG LLP Phoenix, Arizona
January 13, 2005