alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1028

To provide for the income tax treatment of certain distributions under a

governmental plan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Ms. MIKULSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To provide for the income tax treatment of certain

distributions under a governmental plan.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS

4 UNDER A GOVERNMENTAL PLAN.

5 If—

6 (1) during calendar years 1987, 1988, 1989,

7 and 1990, distributions were made under a govern8 mental plan (as defined in section 414(d) of the in9 ternal Revenue Code of 1986) in connection with the

10 transition to a new retirement system being estab-
2

S 1028 IS

1 lished by the governmental entity maintaining such

2 plan,

3 (2) one or more of the employees receiving such

4 distributions erroneously treated such distributions

5 as eligible for rollover treatment under section

6 402(a)(5) of such Code, and

7 (3) with respect to such distributions received

8 in calendar years 1987, 1988, and 1989, the Inter9 nal Revenue Service is providing relief to employees

10 who erroneously treated such distributions as being

11 so eligible,

12 the Internal Revenue Service shall provide the same relief

13 for distributions received in calendar year 1990 as is being

14 provided for distributions received in calendar years 1987,

15 1988, and 1989.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             186
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,028
<INVENTORY>                                     15,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,416
<PP&E>                                          63,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,754
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,309
<SALES>                                         64,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,114
<CGS>                                           43,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    271
<INCOME-TAX>                                        50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       221
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02






</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41481

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORJE JUAREZ-ARTEZ, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-299-2

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jorje Juarez-Artez, Jr., (Juarez) has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Juarez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
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 Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended March 3, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark W. McCutcheon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (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:   April 11, 2006



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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


                                       24
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 Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended February 26, 2010, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark W. McCutcheon, 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,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     (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:     April 15, 2010



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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


                                       23
# C_2020129EN.01000801.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/8

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-97/20)

(2020/C 129/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasha, Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

---
# C_2021338EN.01001301.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 June 2021 — Criminal proceedings against HYA and Others

(Case C-349/21)

(2021/C 338/15)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

HYA and Others

Questions referred

Is a practice of national courts in criminal proceedings whereby the court authorises the interception, recording and storage of telephone conversations of suspects by means of a pre-drafted, generic text template in which it is merely asserted, without any individualisation, that the statutory provisions have been complied with compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(1) and recital 11 thereof?

If not, is it contrary to EU law if the national law is interpreted as meaning that information obtained as a result of such authorisation is used to prove the charges brought?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 13 Volume 036 P. 63).

---
H. Res. 466

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 29, 1994.

Resolved, That all points of order against consideration

of the bill (H.R. 4649) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other

purposes, are waived. During consideration of the bill, all

points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to

comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


     In connection  with the Annual Report of Smithway  Motor Xpress Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period ended  December 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Douglas C. Sandvig, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.


                                  /s/ Douglas C. Sandvig
                                -------------------------------
                                Douglas C. Sandvig
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                March 30, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Smithway  Motor Xpress Corp.  and will be retained by Smithway Motor
Xpress Corp.  and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2020287EN.01003601.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/36

---

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT3)

(Case T-421/20)

(2020/C 287/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz; QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GT3 — Application for registration No 14 738 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1609/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

| — | Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

| — | Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament by failing to consider the other elements under passing off law.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary G. Merritt,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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






/s/ Mary G.
Merritt




Mary G.
Merritt


Principal
Executive Officer


Principal
Financial Officer


August 8,
2008
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 03-10832

_______________________ TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EVELYN UPCHURCH, Director Texas Service Center, and, JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________________________________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (No. 3:03-CV-275-L)

______________________________________________________________________________ Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi appeals from the district court’s decision that Citizenship and Immigration Service properly denied Professor Jose Giraldo’s petition for an O-1 visa. We affirm. In 1999, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (the “university”) filed an O-1 petition for one of its professors, Jose Giraldo, based on Giraldo’s academic excellence. The predecessor to Citizenship and Immigration Service (the “CIS”) approved the petition for September 1, 1999 until August 31, 2002. In 2002, the university filed a timely petition seeking extension of the2

original O-1 petition. The CIS received additional information through a Request for Evidence. Based on the facts before the CIS, that agency denied the petition. The agency found that Professor Giraldo failed to meet the requirements set forth in the applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(O)(3)(iii). The university sought relief in the district court, but the district court upheld the agency’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The university appealed to this court. We find that the district court gave appropriate deference to the agency’s decision. Professor Giraldo obviously has a good record, but he simply fails to meet the necessary requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(O)(3)(iii). Professor Giraldo cannot prevent the CIS from applying the guidelines in 2002 and thereafter because the CIS was lenient in granting Professor Giraldo a visa in 1999. The petition was properly denied. For the above reasons, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Edwin J. NEVILLE and George Young v. SINGING RIVER ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION.

No. 46836.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 30, 1972.

Cumbest, Cumbest & Shaddock, Pasca-goula, for appellants.

Hedgepeth & McDavid, Jackson, O. F. & J. O. Moss, Lucedale, for appellee.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and JONES, INZER, ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jackson County; L. C. Corban, Chancellor.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         2779565
<SECURITIES>                                  10995493
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (761089)
<INVENTORY>                                   10403652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              36717572
<PP&E>                                        12624752
<DEPRECIATION>                               (3122005)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                46600435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5600836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      30998830
<OTHER-SE>                                     9968269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  46600435
<SALES>                                       56375346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              56375346
<CGS>                                         34619414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12906252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                378844
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9125668
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3020900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6104768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6104768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
#### Aubrey James LOPEZ and Forrest Turner, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-77.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

May 20, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.