alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022165EN.01002001.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL v État belge (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge (C-53/21)

(Joined Cases C-52/21 and C-53/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Obligation for purchasers of services to draw up and submit supporting documents to the tax authorities concerning amounts invoiced by suppliers of services established in another Member State - No such obligation regarding purely domestic supplies of services - Justification - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision - Proportionality)

(2022/C 165/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pharmacie populaire — La Sauvegarde SCRL (C-52/21), Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL (C-53/21),

Defendant: État belge (C-52/21 and C-53/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires that any company established on the territory of that Member State submit statements to the tax authorities concerning payments for services purchased from suppliers established in another Member State in which the latter are subject to legislation on the accounting system of undertakings and under the obligation to issue invoices in accordance with legislation on value added tax, failing which a corporation tax levy of 50 % or 100 % of the value of those services is to be made, whereas, in accordance with an administrative practice, the former Member State imposes no equivalent obligation where those services are provided by suppliers established on its territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
#### Janice J. Williams et al., Respondents, v Alden Toshiko, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 780]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated August 12, 1996, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability.

*351Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion including, *inter alia,*the affirmation and report of her expert, Dr. Hugh Wisoff, made out a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff, Janice J. Williams, did not sustain a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The injured plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the defendant’s motion and in support of the cross motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Notably, the injured plaintiff conceded that she was not precluded by her alleged injuries from performing any of her job duties as a school bus monitor. The statement by the injured plaintiff’s treating chiropractor in his affidavit, to the effect that the plaintiffs present limitations were permanent and consequential, was a conclusory assertion tailored to meet statutory requirements *(see, Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1019). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Anthony VIGLIONE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41148.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 17, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, Acting C. J, and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
#### Robert HOOD, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Respondent.

No. 72-1096.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1973.

Roger J. McDonald, of Rowland & Pe-truska, Orlando, for petitioner.

Gary W. Udouj, of Troutman, Griffin & Parrish, Winter Park, for respondent.

*266PER CURIAM.

Finding no proper basis for certiorari consideration, the petition therefor is denied with the court not reaching or ruling upon the ultimate merits of petitioner’s grievance.

Denied.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6915

RICKEY EUGENE DALTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-03-142-7)

Submitted: December 22, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickey Eugene Dalton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Eugene Dalton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dalton has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Factor A G2 Sample:

HDR.S81112.E00.CGNMA.S9998 040512
GNMA II  UPDATE 01     120331  120405
AA0912C4042 QUICKEN LOANS, INC                                          00000017486770000000017338599509915267103500SF030112032027                                36177XAM0
AA0920C4042 QUICKEN LOANS, INC                                          00000010568340000000010552681609985183704000SF030112032042                                36177XAV0
AA0921C4042 QUICKEN LOANS, INC                                          00000016736100000000016705888609981948404000SF030112032042                                36177XAW8
AA0922C4042 QUICKEN LOANS, INC                                          00000072450270000000072346289609985648004000SF030112032042                                36177XAX6
000004M0000                                                             00000008007740000000000175988700219773206950SF070192052022                                36202AAD9
000006M0000                                                             00000025410820000000001305385000513712307000SF070192052022                                36202AAF4
000007M0000                                                             00000353242979900000000144711400004096712000SF090183092013                                36202AAG2
000008M0000                                                             00000466327880000000001341743000028772508000SF070192072022                                36202AAH0
000011M0000                                                             00000428066908900000000053212900001243112000SF110183112013                                36202AAL1
000012M0000                                                             00000728494710000000001554665800021340808500SF070192072022                                36202AAM9
000013M0000                                                             00000620001477400000000018399400000296813000SF090183092013                                36202AAN7
000014M0000                                                             00000300907492400000000049783200001654413000SF100183102013                                36202AAP2
000015M0000                                                             00000111375697900000000081750600007340113000SF110183112013                                36202AAQ0
000017M0000                                                             00000072825650000000000776388600106609209500SF070192072022                                36202AAS6
000019M0000                                                             00001377391149800000000233666700001696412500SF100183102013                                36202AAU1
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Barry Smith, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 416]

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), dated April 22, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court, rendered December 23, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and directed a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the CPL 440.10 hearing overwhelmingly demonstrated the defense counsel’s lack of preparation and his failure to understand the applicable law, communicate with the defendant, investigate the facts of the case, and prepare the defendant to testify, all of which resulted in the *389defendant being denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146; *People v Badia,*159 AD2d 577; *People v Baba-Ali,*179 AD2d 725). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly vacated the defendant’s judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
No. 10702.

#### Dunbar *v.*Egler.

Decided February 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Defiance county.

*Mr. Henry B. Harris*and *Messrs. Winn & Hay,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. H. Hockman*and *Messrs. Ansberry & Farrell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Hartnett*v. *State,*42 Ohio St., 568.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Spiauck and Price, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.6997
<CASH>                                              63
<SECURITIES>                                       560
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     16,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,644
<PP&E>                                         850,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 842,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,489
<BONDS>                                        310,895
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       379,040
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,402)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   842,541
<SALES>                                         22,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,429
<CGS>                                           18,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,894)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                       420
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02<F1>
<FN>
<F1>USING US GAAP AND SFAS 128, BASIC AND DILUTED EPS ARE BOTH $0.02.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Roberto Fabbri, Appellant, v George E. Pataki et al., Respondents

[655 NYS2d 586]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to vacate a warrant of arrest and an order of extradition, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated July 26, 1996, which, *inter alia,*denied the petition and remanded him to the custody of the Westchester County Commissioner of Public Safety.

*521Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the petitioner father’s contention, the respondent Governor of the State of New York did not exceed his jurisdiction by granting a request by the State of New Jersey for extradition based upon a New Jersey divorce judgment voluntarily entered by the father and the mother in 1980. Pursuant to CPL 570.16, on the demand of another State, the Governor of this State may surrender any person living in this State who commits an act in this State intentionally resulting in a crime in the demanding State, when the act for which extradition is sought would be punishable under the laws of this State.

Here, the father voluntarily agreed to pay $85 per week in child support pursuant to the divorce judgment, and did so for two years. He then admitted that he stopped paying child support upon his personal determination that a 1982 New Jersey modification order became null and void when the New York Family Court declined to grant the mother’s request to register it for enforcement purposes *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 37-a). Since the willful nonpayment of child support is punishable under the laws of both New York and New Jersey, and the father admitted that he purposefully ceased paying child support after two years, there was prima facie evidence to support the extradition proceeding *(see,*NJ Stat Annot, § 2G24-5; Penal Law § 260.05; *see also, People v Hinton,*40 NY2d 345, 353; *People ex rel. Allen v Dooley,*156 AD2d 406 ["There must, at least, be some showing of an evidentiary nature establishing every element required under the relevant New York penal statute”]). Under the circumstances, the Governor did not improvidently exercise his discretion by granting the extradition request.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### THOMAS SALMONS, defendant below, appellant *vs.*THEOPHILUS COLLINS, plaintiff below, respondent.

In appeal from a justice in an action of trespass, the proof must establish a trespass prior to the commencement of the action before the justice, and not merely before filing the appeal.

Appeal from a justice of the peace in an action of trespass *quare clausum fregit.*Plea, Not guilty.

The action was commenced before the justice on the 15th of August, and the appeal filed in this court on the 19th of September. The trespass was proved generally, in the month of August, no witness being able to speak to the particular day.

*Brinckloe,*for defendant

moved a nonsuit, on the ground that the trespass was not proved to have been committed before the commencement of the action, assuming the 15th of August to be the date of the action.

*Layton*contra,

contended that the time of filing the appeal would be considered the commencement of the action in this court; and also, that there was satisfactory proof of the tresspass before the 15th of August, when action was commenced before the justice.

*Layton*for plaintiff.

*Brinckloe*for defendant.

*The Court*

refused the nonsuit, but told the jury that they must regard the 15th of August as the time of commencing the action; and must be satisfied by the evidence, that the trespass was committed before that time, otherwise the defendant was entitled to a verdict.

Verdict for plaintiff below.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-98314, 33-98316, 33-98318, 33-98320, 33-99464,
33-99466, 33-99470, 333-04008) of PSINet Inc. (PSINet) of our report dated
February 7, 1997 except as to the last two paragraphs of Note 12 which are as of
February 14, 1997, which appears on page 24 of the 1996 Annual Report to
Shareholders, on PSINet's consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 1996, which is included in Exhibit 13 to this Annual Report on Form
10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the
Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on page 39 of this Form 10-K.

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

March 31, 1997
Washington, D.C.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J A I M E M A CI A S, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 50369 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 7 5 6 - J FW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a im e M a c ia s ap p e a ls f

r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n an d1 8 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df

o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th am p h e tam in e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i i ) . P ur s uantt o A nder s v . 

# FI LED SEP 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 50369 2 Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), M ac i as ’ coun se lhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e n o g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith dr aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e have prov i ded the appel l antw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent al br i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a lbr i e f orans w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 235 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th draw i s GR AN T E D. DI S MI S S E D.
# C_2023261EN.01000302.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/3

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Conseil national des barreaux, Conférence des bâtonniers, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Paris v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance, in the presence of: Ordre des avocats du barreau des Hauts-de-Seine

(Case C-398/21, (1) Conseil national des barreaux and Others)

(2023/C 261/06)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
259 La. 765

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Nealy Ray CLARK v. Louis M. SOWERS, Director, Dept. of Corrections, et al.

No. 51760.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: Nealy Ray Clark applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. There is no merit in the application.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         July 11, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 5, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 70 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-190, CP2018-264.                

Maria W. Votsch,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-14782 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P