alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-(4).(g)



 THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 

PENSION AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN ENDORSEMENT 

This Endorsement forms a part of the Contract to which it is attached. The effective date of this Endorsement is the Contract Date shown on
the Contract Data Page. 
 THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS APPLY TO A CONTRACT WHICH IS ISSUED UNDER A PLAN QUALIFIED UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
(“IRC”) SECTION 401. IN THE CASE OF A CONFLICT WITH ANY PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ENDORSEMENT WILL CONTROL. 
  

	 	l.	 The Annuitant of this Contract will be the applicable Owner under the Plan and the Owner of this Contract will
be as designated in the Plan. 


  

	 	2.	 This Contract, and the benefits under it, cannot be sold, assigned, discounted, pledged as collateral for a
loan or as security for the performance of an obligation or for any other purpose to any person other than the Company. 


  

	 	3.	 The terms of this Contract and Endorsement are subject to the provisions of the plan under which this Contract
and Endorsement are issued. 


  

	 	4.	 The Unisex annuity rates pertaining to the Actuarial Basis of Computation shown in the Contract will be
furnished upon Your request. 


 All other terms and conditions of the Contract remain unchanged. 

THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
  





 

  

					
	 USLE-6067 (12/15)
	  	1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-19-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 63282000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  207550000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             302166000
<PP&E>                                       180199000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               802754000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        153781000
<BONDS>                                      382135000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        925000
<OTHER-SE>                                   221561000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 802754000
<SALES>                                      538663000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             538663000
<CGS>                                        327875000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                327875000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            10657000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               76796000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  29997000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           46913000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  46913000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
#### Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Soc.

18735

5/6/97

Denied

85 Hawai'i 7, 936 P.2d 643
**Annex 3. Item 4. – Work plan and priorities**

**WORK PLAN FOR THE AQUATIC ANIMALS COMMISSION**

**(Including provisional timelines for commenting and adoption)**
CSB BANCORP, INC.EXHIBIT 32.2SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,(the “Report”), I, Paula J. Meiler, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 10, 2007              /s/ Paula J. Meiler   Paula J. Meiler    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    * This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwisesubject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except asotherwise stated in such filing.
28
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6239

ERIC LAMONT YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-97-443, CA-00-2453)

Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Lamont Young, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.

4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Lamont Young appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and denying

reconsideration of that order.

In an action in which the United States is a party, parties

are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order dismissing Young’s § 2255 motion

was entered on October 17, 2000. Young’s notice of appeal was

filed on December 30, 2000.* Young filed his motion to reconsider

more than ten days from the district court's order dismissing his

§ 2255 motion, consequently the time period for filing his appeal

of that order was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4);

Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001).

Therefore, Young's appeal is only timely as to the district court's
3

order denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration, construed

here under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See, e.g., Small v. Hunt, 98

F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 1996).

This Court reviews denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667,

669 (4th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and

conclude the district court's order denying Young's motion for

reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Young's appeal as

to both district court orders. 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
# C_2019383EN.01005902.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/59

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — BO v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-50/18) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Freelance translators - Selection procedure - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 383/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BO (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender for the conclusion of a framework contract for the translation of legal texts from German into Greek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
# C_2019093EN.01006001.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/60

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)

(Case T-91/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 93/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equity Cheque Capital Corporation (Victoria, Canada) (represented by: I. Berkeley, Barrister, P. Wheeler and C. Rani, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 (Case R 1544/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign DIAMOND CARD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Equity Cheque Capital Corporation to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Equity Cheque Capital Corporation to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
#### Booth v. Booth

20962

11/20/98

Affirmed in part, Vacated in part & Remanded
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86648-86649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27521]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 11, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting was held via video conference on the internet.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Special Review Committee of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the 
Corporation's corporate activities within its authority to act on 
behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In calling the 
meeting, the Special Review Committee determined, by the unanimous vote 
of Director Jonathan P. McKernan and Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting 
Comptroller of the Currency), that Corporation business required its 
consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this 
meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier 
notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not 
require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public 
observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed 
meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2) and (c)(4) of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (c)(4)).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for further information 
concerning the meeting may be directed

[[Page 86649]]

to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-
8748.
    Dated: December 11, 2023.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27521 Filed 12-12-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
September 8, 1999

21669

#### Todd v. Modern Elec., Inc.

Vacated in part, Affirmed in part
February 11, 2005

23844

#### Olson v. Coronel; American Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Coronel

Affirmed
USDA Horse Protection Act Disqualification and Civil Penalty List (as of March 2024) 

The following list identifies individuals and/or companies that have been assessed a Federal Disqualification under the Horse Protection Act. While under Federal 

Disqualification, a person is prohibited from showing, exhibiting, or entering any horse, directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, or other device, and 

from judging, managing or otherwise participating in any horse show, horse exhibition or horse sale or auction. Please note that while the list below identifies the 

disqualification periods for the individuals and companies, the list is not controlling. The controlling documents setting forth the terms and dates of the Federal 

Disqualification are the signed Decisions and Orders, hyperlinked below.

Disqualification

Start Date

Disqualification

End Date

Disqualification 

Period

Last 

Name First Name State Docket Number

Date of 

Controlling 

Document

Civil Penalty Action

6/1/2021 5/31/2024 3 years Cantrell Bill TN 17-0108 7/21/2020 n/a Amended Consent Decision II

6/1/2021 5/31/2024 3 years Harrell Larry TN 17-0110 7/21/2020 n/a Amended Consent Decision

6/4/2019 6/3/2024 5 years Burks Danny TN 17-0027 5/7/2019 $2,200 

Order Granting 

Complainant's

Default to Lift Stay Order 

Decision and Order Motion

12/20/2023 6/20/2024 6 months Self Joseph 

Aaron TN 17-0036 12/20/2023 $550 Consent Decision

11/7/2022 7/6/2024 1 year and Milligan Martha 16-0029

17-0148 7/31/2019 $7,700 Consent Decision

9/1/2019 8/31/2024 5 years Wilson Cliff TN 17-0104 6/12/2019 n/a Consent Decision

3/19/2024 9/19/2024 6 months Stinnett Lexie TN 23-J-0059 3/18/2024 $3,147 Consent Decision

10/30/2023 2/28/2025 16 months Alexander Christopher TN 17-0195 10/30/2023 $2,200 Consent Decision

7/1/2021 6/30/2025 4 years Green Charles Ray TN 15-0188

17-0145 11/30/2020 n/a Amended Consent Decision

9/15/2021 9/15/2025 48 months Green Jeff TN 17-0205 11/4/2020 $6,000 Consent Decision
10/1/2022 9/30/2025 3 years Edwards Gary TN

14-0007

14-0015

17-0148

2/21/2019 n/a Consent Decision

10/30/2023 10/30/2025 2 years Formac 

Stables TN 16-0170

17-0204 10/30/2023 $3,300 Consent Decision

12/1/2020 11/30/2025 5 years Derickson Herbert TN 14-0199

17-0163 7/7/2020 n/a Amended Consent Decision

3/19/2024 3/19/2026 2 years Allen Wesley TN 23-J-0058 3/18/2024 n/a Consent Decision

10/30/2023 6/30/2026 32 months McConnell James TN 16-0169

17-0207 10/30/2023 $4,400 Consent Decision

3/28/2023 3/27/2027 4 years France Daphne TN 20-J-0045 2/13/2023 $22,488 Decision and Order

5/10/2017 5/9/2027 10 years Holley Timothy 

Wayne MS 11-0367 2/9/2012 $19,400 Default Decision and Order

8/27/2012 n/a Permanent McConnell Jackie TN 12-0466 8/1/2012

150000

(held in 

abeyance)

Consent Decision
United States

Department of

Agriculture

^_ ^_

Oswego

Ca yuga

Orlea ns

Nia ga ra

Monroe Wa yne

Ononda ga

Genesee

Erie

Onta rio

S eneca

Wyom ing L ivingston Ya tes

Tom pkins

S teub en

Cha uta uqua S chuyler

Ca tta ra ugus Allega ny

T ioga

Chem ung

T hese da ta ,a nd a llthe inform a tionconta ined therein,ha ve b eencollected b y the U .S .Depa rtm entofAgriculture'sAnim a la nd Pla ntHea lth InspectionS ervice (APHIS ),

orb y itscoopera torsonAPHIS ’b eha lf,forrestricted governm entpurposesonly a nd isthe sole propertyofAPHIS .Da ta m a y b e dissem ina ted ona need-to-know b a sis

only a nd m ustb e used fortheirintended governm entpurpose(s).Allinform a tionconta ined withinthese da ta a re sub jecttorequired Federa lsa fegua rdsa nd sha llonly

b e sha red a nd/orused consistentwith the T ra de S ecretsAct[18U .S .C.1905],the Priva cyActof1974,a sa m ended [5U .S .C.552a ],the Freedom ofInform a tionAct

[5U .S .C.552],the confidentia lityprovisionsofthe Food S ecurityActof1985[7U .S .C.2276],S ection1619ofthe Food,Conserva tion,a nd EnergyActof2008

[7U .S .C.8791],a nd othera pplica b le Federa lla wsa nd im plem enting regula tions,a swella swith the confidentia lityornon-disclosure provisionsofa ny other

a greem ententered intob etweenAPHIS a nd a coopera tor.

Da ta S ource:U S DAAPHIS PPQ&

NYS DAM

ECFFDirector:Ma fa lda Weldon

U S DA,APHIS ,PPQ

Ma pb y:Brooke Cha m b erla in,PHS S

Coordina te S ystem :NAD1983S ta tePla ne New York WestFIPS 3103

Projection:T ra nsverse Merca tor

Da te:2/25/2021 Da tum :North Am erica n1983

S ervice L a yerCredits:S ources:Esri,HERE,Ga rm in,U S GS ,Interm a p,INCREMENT P,NRCa n,EsriJa pa n,MET I,EsriChina (Hong Kong),EsriKorea ,Esri

(T ha ila nd),NGCC,© OpenS treetMa pcontrib utors,a nd the GIS U serCom m unity

European Cherry Fruit Fly 2021 Quarantine

APHIS PPQEuropea nCherryFruitFlyProgra m

 ̄ 0 4 8 16 24 32

Miles

Legend

^_ APHIS PPQPenfield Office L oca tion

^_ APHIS PPQL ockportOffice L oca tion

2021ECFFQua ra ntine

Na tive Am erica nNa tions

New York Counties
rd
 /s/ Joseph T. DunsmoreJoseph T. Dunsmore




---



##### 



rd
 /s/ Brenda L. MuellerBrenda L. Mueller




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Guy C. JacksonGuy C. Jackson




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Kenneth E. MillardKenneth E. Millard




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Ahmed NawazAhmed Nawaz




---



##### 



th
 /s/ William N. PriesmeyerWilliam N. Priesmeyer




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Bradley J. WilliamsBradley J. Williams
#### Sharon Winn COOK, natural mother and guardian of Perris Zan Winn, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas Lee STARKEY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 14239.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 21, 1976.

Pete N. Vlahos and David Knowlton, of Vlahos & ' Knowlton, Ogden, for plaintiff and appellant.

David K. Winder of Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, for Starkey and Gibb.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for State.

*1269TUCKETT, Justice:

Plaintiff initiated these proceedings in the District Court of Weber County, seeking to' recover for the wrongful death of her son, Perris Zan Winn. A complaint was filed on November 15, 1973, but no summons was issued. On November 8, 1974, an amended complaint was filed and a summons issued on November 19, 1974, and served on the 14th day of April, 1975. The State of Utah answered the complaint, and on stipulation of the parties the action as to the State of Utah was dismissed. The other defendants appeared specially and moved the court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the summons had not been served timely and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4(b), U.R.C.P. The pertinent language of that rule is as follows :

> ' If an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint, summons must issue thereon within three months from the date of such filing. The summons must be served within one year after the filing of the complaint or the action will be deemed dismissed, ....

The rule provides that a summons must issue within three months from the filing of the complaint, and the summons must be served within one year after its filing or the action will be deemed dismissed.1

The court below found that the service of summons was ineffective and dismissed the action. The plaintiff is here seeking a reversal.

The plaintiff could have recommenced her action by the filing of a new complaint had she elected to so do, but instead she filed an amended complaint, and she urges here that the filing of the amended complaint had the same effect as though she had started her action anew. The amended complaint relates back to the original complaint and was ineffective in commencing the time that the summons could be issued and served. Rule 15(c) so provides:

> Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.

The case law from this jurisdiction was to the same effect prior to the adoption of the *rule**2***that an amended complaint relates back to the first complaint.

The decision of the trial court is affirmed. No costs awarded.

HENRIOD, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. *Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. Dietrich,*25 Utah 2d 65, 475 P.2d 1005; *Dennett v. Powers,*Utah, 536 P.2d 135.

2

. *Peterson v. Union Pacific R. Co.,*79 Utah 213, 8 P.2d 627; *Askwith v. Ellis,*85 Utah 103, 38 P.2d 757.
August 10, 2000

22573

#### State v. Grindling

Affirmed
- 350 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

POPE v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Cite as 311 Neb. 350

Colt M. Pope, appellant, v. Department 

of Motor Vehicles of the State 

of Nebraska, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 15, 2022. No. S-21-206.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Clay County: Stephen 

R. Illingworth, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for 

rehearing overruled.

T. Charles James, of Langvardt, Valle & James, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Milissa JohnsonWiles for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by 

the appellant, Colt M. Pope, concerning our opinion in Pope 

v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 310 Neb. 971, 969 N.W.2d 

903 (2022).

We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows:

In the analysis section, under the subheading “OTHER 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR,” we modify the fourth paragraph to add as the final sentence the following: “We make 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/13/2022 01:06 AM CDT
- 351 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

POPE v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Cite as 311 Neb. 350

no comment on any prohibitions or obligations under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 84-914(6) (Reissue 2014), as Pope has not assigned as 

error, nor has he argued he was prejudiced by, any purported 

violation of that statute.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modified.

Motion for rehearing overruled.
#### Palalay v. State

17670

4/24/97

Affirmed
# C_2019082EN.01000901.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven e.V. v Finanzamt Cuxhaven

(Case C-715/18)

(2019/C 82/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven e.V.

Defendant: Finanzamt Cuxhaven

Question referred

Does the tax rate reduction for the letting of places on camping or caravan sites under Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (‘the VAT Directive’), in conjunction with Annex III, No 12, to that directive, also cover the letting of boat moorings?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---