alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022138EN.01000501.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/5

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vapo Atlantic SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-460/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 1(2) - Levying, for specific purposes, of other indirect taxes - ‘Specific purposes’ - Definition - Financing of a public undertaking holding the concession contract in respect of the national road network - Objectives of environmental sustainability and reducing accidents - Purely budgetary purpose - Refusal to reimburse a tax based on unjust enrichment - Conditions)

(2022/C 138/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vapo Atlantic SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

By order of the Court of 7 February 2022, the Court (Eighth Chamber) rules:

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a charge, the revenue from which is allocated, in a generic manner, to a public undertaking holding the concession contract for the national road network and the structure of that charge does not indicate an intention to discourage the consumption of the main road fuels, does not pursue ‘specific purposes’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a charge, the revenue from which is allocated, in a generic manner, to a public undertaking holding the concession contract for the national road network and the structure of that charge does not indicate an intention to discourage the consumption of the main road fuels, does not pursue ‘specific purposes’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | EU law must be interpreted as precluding national authorities from being able to justify their refusal to reimburse an indirect charge that is contrary to Directive 2008/118 by assuming that that charge has been passed on to third parties and, as a result, that the taxable person has been unjustly enriched. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law must be interpreted as precluding national authorities from being able to justify their refusal to reimburse an indirect charge that is contrary to Directive 2008/118 by assuming that that charge has been passed on to third parties and, as a result, that the taxable person has been unjustly enriched.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 26/7/2021.

---
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

                                             EXHIBIT 12
                                       THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                  RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<CAPTION>


                                         Three Months
                                            Ended
(Millions)                                March 31,
                                             2002        2001     2000     1999     1998     1997
                                         ------------    ----     ----     ----     ----     ----
<S>                                     <C>             <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>

Earnings:
  Income from continuing operations
    before income taxes                   $  323        1,342    1,288    1,912    1,656    2,065
  Interest expense                            20          145      223      136       94       78
  Interest portion of rental expense          10           31       25       20       17       16
  Amortization or capitalized interest         3            9        6        5        4        3
                                          ------        -----    -----    -----    -----    -----
  Earnings available for fixed charges    $  356        1,527    1,542    2,073    1,771    2,162
                                          ======        =====    =====    =====    =====    =====

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                        $   20          145      223      136       94       78
  Interest capitalized                         1           11       23       13       18       10
  Interest portion of rental expense          10           31       25       20       17       16
                                          ------        -----    -----    -----    -----    -----
  Total fixed charges                     $   31          187      271      169      129      104
                                          ======        =====    =====    =====    =====    =====


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          11.5          8.2      5.7     12.3     13.7     20.8
                                          ======        =====    =====    =====    =====    =====
</TABLE>
#### Mark A. WEBSTER v. Richard GERSTEIN.

No. 38587.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
#### STOCKHAM PIPE & FITTINGS CO. v. KEY BOILER EQUIPMENT CO., Inc.

No. 5744.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 21, 1937.

Harry Lea Dodson, of Chicago, 111., for appellants.

John D. Rippey and John H. Cassidy, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before EVANS, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit: “The parties hereto, having settled their differences out of Court, it is hereby stipulated that the appeal herein shall be dismissed without costs to either party.” On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without costs to either party pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
| Date:  September 3, 2009 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                  |   |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               | Marc T. GilesPresident and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                      |   |
|                               |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
| Date:  September 3, 2009 | /s/ Michael R. Elia                                     |   |
|                               | Michael R. EliaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                     |   |
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: MARCUS ESCOB OSA, PATRICK H. HAYE S, JAMES N. CONWAY, JR.

, Appellants

______________________

2018

- 2259

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/736,761.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J AMES J. L UKAS

, J R

. , Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellants. Also represented by B ENJAMIN G ILFORD

, G ARY R. J AROSIK

.

M AUREEN D ONOVAN Q UELER , Office of the Solicitor,

U nited States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by

T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, J OSEPH M ATAL

, R OBERT J. M C M ANUS

, A MY J. N ELSON

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED : Case: 18-2259 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2020P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, M AYER and

L OURIE

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 6, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 18-2259 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
27.1                    Financial Data Schedule.

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS PART OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 911
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                          4,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     6,662
<PP&E>                             104,716
<DEPRECIATION>                      37,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     114,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               17,962
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                56
<OTHER-SE>                          59,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       114,618
<SALES>                            131,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   131,944
<CGS>                               33,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      118,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   1,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     11,452
<INCOME-TAX>                         4,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  6,904
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         6,904
<EPS-BASIC>                           1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                         1.18


</TABLE>
[No. 541-1.

Division Three.

October 12, 1971.]

#### C. M. Melburn General Building Repairs, Inc., *Respondent,*v. June Reed *et al., Appellants,*The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 703210, Robert A. Hannan, J., entered March 10, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 8.1




                    SUBSIDIARIES OF W.P. STEWART & CO., LTD.


Subsidiary                                         JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------  -----------------------------
W.P. Stewart & Co. (Europe), Ltd. ...............             England
NS Money Management Ltd. ........................             Bermuda
Cribewell Investments ...........................             Curacao
TPRS Services N.V. ..............................             Curacao
W.P. Stewart & Co., Inc. ........................            Delaware
W.P. Stewart Securities Limited .................             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Asset Management Ltd. ..............             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Fund Management Limited.............             Ireland
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (NA), Inc. ........            New York
W.P. Stewart Asset Management, Inc. .............            Delaware
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), Ltd. ....             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Curacao), N.V. ...      Netherlands Antilles
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), N.V. ....         The Netherlands
TPR Curacao N.V. ................................      Netherlands Antilles
WPSH Management N.V. ............................      Netherlands Antilles
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barbara Baylor, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 265]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 11, 2000, convicting her of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 *427NY2d 606). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### MIDDLE FLORIDA COLD STORAGE COMPANY, and A. L. Livingston and L. W. Livingston, individually, Appellants, v. Gladys M. LAWSON, joined by her husband, O. Z. Lawson, Appellees.

No. I-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 5, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### John Calvin COOLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 15, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Knott, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. W. E. “Bill” DAVIS, Respondent.

No. 42398.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 261 So.2d 188.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### H. H. MOTTER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Kansas, v. Sarah P. SNOWDEN.

No. 1518.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1937.

S. S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., for appellant.

Steadman Ball, of Atchison, Kan., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, PFIILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                July 16, 2007 |   | /s/                Tami J. Story     |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Name:                Tami J. Story                          |
|                                |   | Title:                Chief Financial Officer               |

----
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Roland N. WILLIAMS, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-55.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 524 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 524

  Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3990) to provide 
                   protection from sexual predators.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 17, 1994

Ms. Dunn (for herself, Mr. Deal, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
   Kyl, Mrs. Fowler, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Cunningham, Mrs. 
 Roukema, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. 
 Crapo) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3990) to provide 
                   protection from sexual predators.

    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3990) to provide 
protection from sexual predators, and the first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. After general debate which shall be confined 
to the bill, and which shall not exceed two hours, one hour to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and one hour to be controlled 
by Representative Dunn of Washington, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative 
Dunn of Washington, or a designee, as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the five-minute rule, the amendment shall be 
considered as read, and all points of order against the amendment are 
waived. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
motion except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.3
                                                                                
                                  PSINet Inc.
                                        
Calculation of Basic and Diluted Loss per Share and Weighted Average Shares Used
                               in Calculation (1)
                                        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               Year Ended
                                                                                            December 31, 1996
                                                                                            -----------------
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
<S>                                                                                <C>
   Shares outstanding at beginning of year.......................................                  37,914,932
   Weighted average shares issued during the year ended December 31, 1996                           1,463,072
    (2,198,302  shares)..........................................................                ------------
                                                                                                   39,378,004
                                                                                                 ============
Net loss available to common shareholders........................................                $(55,097,000)
                                                                                                 ============
Basic and diluted loss per share.................................................                $      (1.40)
                                                                                                 ============
</TABLE>
_____________
(1)  For a description of basic and diluted loss per share, see Note 1 of the
     Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8
     of this Form 10-K.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 28, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 28, 1997 FOR GENRAD, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000040972
<NAME>                             10-Q
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                    14,540
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             61,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                 969
<INVENTORY>                               20,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         101,772
<PP&E>                                    89,601
<DEPRECIATION>                            60,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           148,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     30,847
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  26,814
<OTHER-SE>                                60,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             148,393
<SALES>                                   50,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          61,050
<CGS>                                     24,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             31,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          20,619
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            8,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                 806
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        7,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               7,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .28
        



</TABLE>