alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021349EN.01002202.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 21 June 2021 — P GmbH

(Case C-378/21)

(2021/C 349/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Austria

Questions referred

| 1. | Is VAT payable by the issuer of the invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive (1) if, as in the present case, there may be no risk of loss of tax revenue, because the recipients of the services are final consumers who are not entitled to the right of deduction? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is VAT payable by the issuer of the invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive (1) if, as in the present case, there may be no risk of loss of tax revenue, because the recipients of the services are final consumers who are not entitled to the right of deduction?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative and VAT is payable by the issuer of an invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive:






  a. | Can the correction of invoices in respect of the recipients of services be precluded if, on the one hand, a risk of loss of tax revenue is excluded and, on the other, the correction of invoices is effectively impossible? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative and VAT is payable by the issuer of an invoice under Article 203 of the VAT Directive:

a.

Can the correction of invoices in respect of the recipients of services be precluded if, on the one hand, a risk of loss of tax revenue is excluded and, on the other, the correction of invoices is effectively impossible?

| b. | Does the fact that final consumers have borne the tax as part of the consideration, thereby enriching the taxable person by correcting the VAT, preclude the correction of the VAT? |
| --- | --- |

b.

Does the fact that final consumers have borne the tax as part of the consideration, thereby enriching the taxable person by correcting the VAT, preclude the correction of the VAT?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1219

To extend the existing suspension of duty on chemical intermediate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 14 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. COATS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the existing suspension of duty on chemical

intermediate.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF

4 DUTY ON CHEMICAL INTERMEDIATE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.30.96 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/96’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 this section applies with respect to articles entered, or

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

11 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
2

•S 1219 IS

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

November 26, 2014

h1119 

# Order

Clerk November 26, 2014

149509 & (10)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149509

COA: 320360

Marquette CC: 12

- 050758

- FC

AXEL GABRIEL ACEVEDO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is c onsidered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 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>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,717
<SECURITIES>                                   176,606
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,951
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,789
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,789
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Day International
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Thomas J. Koenig, 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 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 position and results of operations of
the Company.

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




/s/ Thomas J. Koenig
-----------------------
Thomas J. Koenig
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003
| Date:  December 9, 2010 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                              | Marc T. GilesPresident and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                      |   |
|                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
| Date:  December 9, 2010 | /s/ Michael R. Elia                                     |   |
|                              | Michael R. EliaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                     |   |
# C_2023094EN.01003401.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — Società Navigazione Siciliana v Commission

(Case T-666/21) (1)

(State aid - Maritime transport - Exemption in part from registration duties payable for the transfer of business between undertakings - Decision declaring the aid to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Recipient of the aid - Service of general economic interest - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Excessive length of the procedure)

(2023/C 94/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA (Trapani, Italy) (represented by: R. Nazzini, F. Ruggeri Laderchi, C. Labruna and L. Calini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz, C.-M. Carrega and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, first, under Article 263 TFEU, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2021) 4268 final of 17 June 2021 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Siremar and its acquirer Società Navigazione Siciliana, in so far as the Commission declared incompatible certain tax exemptions provided for by Law No 163 of 1 October 2010 converting Decree-Law No 125 of 5 August 2010 and ordered their recovery, and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, compensation for damage that the applicant claims to have suffered from the excessive and unreasonable length of the formal investigation procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 550 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 550

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 349) to provide for the 
disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived except for the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
XXVIII (the three-day availability requirement for conference reports). The 
conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
259 La. 873

#### Marshall LAIRD et ux. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51744.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen. 251 So.2d 73.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# C_2020247EN.01003402.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/34

---

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — Calatrava Real State 2015 v SRB

(Case T-307/20)

(2020/C 247/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Calatrava Real State 2015, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruíz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A.

| — | order the defendant and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Cases T-302/20, Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Single Resolution Board, and T-303/20, Arias Mosquera and Others v Single Resolution Board.

---
#### PEOPLES GAS SYSTEM, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. DADE COUNTY et al., Respondents.

No. 41639.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARL TON and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
**Exhibit
        23.1**
 
 
 **Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589 and 333-48507 on Form S-8 and Registration
        Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report, dated
        March 8, 2006 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp
        for the year ended December 31, 2005.
 
 \s\Porter
        Keadle Moore, LLP
 
 
 Atlanta,
        Georgia
 March
        28,
        2006
Exhibit 99.1



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 December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary G. Merritt, Principal 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:



(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 February 13, 2003





22
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM A. GRAVEN, named as Will

Graven,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 15110

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 04586

- SPL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

William A. Graven appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of Eleventh

Amendment immunity

. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish , 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15110

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Graven’s action against the State of

Arizona as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State S ch. & Hosp.

v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to

states and their agencies or departments “regardless of the nature of the relief

sought”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 of Datastream Systems, Inc., of our reports dated February 27, 2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Datastream Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2005, the related financial statement schedule, managements assessment of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 Form 10-K of Datastream Systems, Inc.:



|     |  |                     |  |            
|---- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------
|Form |  | Registration Number |  | Filing Date
|S-8  |  | 333-00314           |  | 1/16/1996  
|S-8  |  | 333-00080           |  | 1/16/1996  
|S-8  |  | 333-03579           |  | 5/13/1996  
|S-8  |  | 333-37655           |  | 10/10/1997 
|S-8  |  | 333-50395           |  | 4/17/1998  
|S-8  |  | 333-50397           |  | 4/17/1998  
|S-8  |  | 333-50399           |  | 4/17/1998  
|S-8  |  | 333-57055           |  | 6/17/1998  
|S-8  |  | 333-79085           |  | 5/21/1999  
|S-8  |  | 333-81663           |  | 6/28/1999  
|S-8  |  | 333-43980           |  | 8/17/2000  
|S-8  |  | 333-43982           |  | 8/17/2000  
|S-8  |  | 333-59320           |  | 4/20/2001  
|S-8  |  | 333-99145           |  | 9/04/2002  
|S-8  |  | 333-107431          |  | 7/29/2003  

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina

February 27, 2006
# C_2023007EN.01002501.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Praesidiad v EUIPO — Zaun (Post)

(Case T-231/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a post - Ground for invalidity - Failure to comply with the requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 7/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Praesidiad Holding (Zwevegem, Belgium) (represented by M. Rieger-Jansen and D. Op de Beeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zaun Ltd (Wolverhampton, United Kingdom) (represented by O. Petter and J. Saladin, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 February 2021 (Case R 2068/2019-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 February 2021 (Case R 2068/2019-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 February 2021 (Case R 2068/2019-3);

| 2. | Rejects the application filed by Zaun Ltd on 27 March 2018 for a declaration that the design registered under the number 127204-0001 is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the application filed by Zaun Ltd on 27 March 2018 for a declaration that the design registered under the number 127204-0001 is invalid;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Praesidiad Holding; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Praesidiad Holding;

| 4. | Orders Zaun to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Zaun to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
### The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 96-1833

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Wendell Lee Johnson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

__________ Submitted: October 7, 1996 Filed: October 10, 1996

__________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
We ndell Lee Johnson appeals the district court's denial of hi s 1 motion to vacate his conviction as violative of the Double Jeopardy Clause pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Johnson asserted that his property wa s forfeitedprior to his conviction and sentence, and that his failure t o raise this double jeo pardy claim in his direct criminal appeal was due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. We conclude that Johnson' s double jeopardy claim is foreclosed for the reasons set forth in Unite d St ates v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-49 (1996) (holding civi l forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and (7) are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of double jeopardy), and United States v. On e 1970

### -2-

36.9' Columbia Sailing Boat , 91 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (8th Cir. 1996) (holdin g Ursery applies to forfeitures under section 881(a)(4)). We also agree wit h the district court that Johnson's ineffective assistance claim fails, as he was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure t o raise a meritless double jeopardyclaim. See Dyer v. United States , 23 F.3d 1424, 1426 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### CENTRAL SERVICE & SUPPLY CO., Inc. v. Earl L. LeCORGNE, Jr.

No. 45996.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 7, 1970.

Sam P. Cooper, Jr., Picayune, for appellant.

Williams & Smith, Picayune, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.