alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐427/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/100/EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania –
Failure to transpose within the prescribed period – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/100, Art. 2) (see
paras 10-11, operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2009153EN.01001402.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-256/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who need international protection - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period)

2009/C 153/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O’Reilly and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4326 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1211 Towanda Avenue in Bloomington, Illinois, as the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. RUSH, Ms. 

KELLY of Illinois, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. 

ROSKAM, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. BOST, Mr. HULTGREN, 

Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. KINZINGER, and Mrs. BUSTOS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1211 Towanda Avenue in Bloomington, Illinois, as the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SGT. JOSH RODGERS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1211 Towanda Avenue in Bloom6 ington, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers Post Office’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4326 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Josh Rodgers 

5 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on 
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 6063) to amend title 
18, United States Code, with respect to child pornography and child 
exploitation offenses.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
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 Quarterly Report
of Reed’s, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Linesch, Chief 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, as amended; 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: 	August
13, 2012



/s/ James Linesch

James Linesch

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.3**
****

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002**



The undersigned officer of Summit
Financial Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the “Report), that, to such officer’s knowledge:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:
      April 29, 2005J.
      Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive
Officer



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. LUCAS:
       H.R. 6228.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The ability to regulate interstate commerce pursuant to 
     Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
```
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Glenn
      Welstad, President and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
      "Company") do hereby 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:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
      June
      29, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 13, 2007/s/ Glenn
                WelstadGlenn
                WelstadPresident and CEO
  10-QSB
            Page 26
ex10-6.htm


Exhibit 10.6 

 

	
 



 





 

 


 

 




 


 

	
 



 

Table of Contents

 

	
Introduction 
	
 3

	 	 
	
PERSONS COVERED
	
 3

	 	 
	
Transactions Covered 
	
 3

	 	 
	
IMPLEMENTATION
	
 3



 

 





Responsible Party: Admin / Sam Jimenez

Board Approved: December 20, 2016 


2




 


 

	
 



 

 

Introduction 

 

The board of directors (the “Board”) of Bank of Commerce Holdings (the “Company”) believes that ownership of the Company’s common stock by the Company’s directors, officers and employees serves to align the interests of such persons with those of the Company’s shareholders generally, with positive results. 

 

However, certain transactions in the Company’s common stock, or which are linked to the value of the Company’s common stock, may create the appearance that such interests are not properly aligned, to the extent that such transactions are designed to hedge or offset against any decrease in the market value of the Company’s common stock. Accordingly, the Board is adopting this anti-hedging policy (“Policy”) to prohibit such transactions.

 

 

Persons Covered 

  

This Policy applies to all directors, officers and employees of the Company and its subsidiary Redding Bank of Commerce, and their designees (“Covered Persons”).

 

 

Transactions Covered

  

The purchase of a financial instrument or other transaction that is designed to, or has the effect of, hedging or offsetting any decrease in the market value of Company common stock that is either (i) granted to the Covered Person as a part of compensation, or (ii) held, directly or indirectly, by such Covered Person. These transactions can include the purchase of prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars, short sales, and exchange funds. Regardless of the specific form of any particular transaction, such transactions are referred to for purposes of this Policy as “Hedging Transactions.” 

 

Essentially, a Hedging Transaction is any transaction that would have the economic effect of establishing a downside price protection in connection with Company common stock held by a Covered Person, whether by purchasing or selling a security or derivative security, or otherwise. Hedging Transactions are prohibited by this Policy. In laypersons terms, this would be equivalent to “betting against the house.”

  

 





Responsible Party: Admin / Sam Jimenez

Board Approved: December 20, 2016 


3




 


  

	
 



 

 

Implementation

  

Potential Hedging Transactions can take many forms, some of which are quite complex. Accordingly, any Covered Person considering an arrangement or transaction that might constitute a Hedging Transaction should contact the Company Chief Operating Officer prior to entering into such arrangement or transaction for clarification. 

  

 

 

Responsible Party: Admin / Sam Jimenez

Board Approved: December 20, 2016

4
<Page>

EXHIBIT 10.26

                         [EMRISE Corporation Letterhead]




                                December 31, 2006

Randolph D. Foote
Emrise Corporation
9485 Haven Avenue, Suite 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

      Re:   CONSULTING EXTENSION

Dear Randy:

      This letter confirms the agreement between you and EMRISE Corporation (the
"Company") to modify our letter agreement with you dated August 18, 2006, by
changing the Employment Separation Date to January 31, 2007, which will extend
your temporary employment by one additional month. If the Company determines, in
its sole discretion, that additional time is needed or desired to complete your
work for the Company, then you have agreed to consider at that time a further
extension of the Employment Separation Date for up to two additional months,
I.E., until March 30, 2007, but nothing in this modification agreement requires
you or the Company to extend your temporary employment beyond January 31, 2007.
The Company will continue your compensation and benefits through the Employment
Separation Date, as set forth in our agreement dated August 18, 2006.

      Other than the extension of the Employment Separation Date described
above, nothing in this modification agreement is intended to alter or change any
of the other terms of our agreement dated August 18, 2006, all of which remain
in effect.

      Randy, if you agree to the modification described above, then please
indicate your agreement by signing below.

                                                Very truly yours,

                                                /s/ Carmine T. Oliva
                                                --------------------
                                                Carmine T. Oliva
                                                President
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


/s/ Randolph D. Foote
-----------------------
Randolph D. Foote
# C_2010051EN.01001102.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Angelo Rubino v Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

(Case C-586/08) (1)

1

(Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of diplomas - ‘Regulated profession’ - Selection of a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment conferring a qualification limited in time - National academic qualification for appointment - University lecturer)

2010/C 51/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelo Rubino

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c) EC and 47(1) EC and of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications — National legislation which does not allow for the recognition of the professional qualification of university lecturer obtained in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The fact that access to a profession is reserved to candidates who have been successful in a procedure to select a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment of the candidates rather than by application of absolute criteria, which confers a qualification the validity of which is strictly limited in time, does not mean that that profession constitutes a regulated profession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.

Nevertheless, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC require qualifications obtained in other Member States to be accorded their proper value and to be duly taken into account in such a procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐575/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/56/EC – Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------


The Board of Directors of Aerovox Incorporated:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (File
No. 33-35029, 33-35030, 33-35031, 33-68940, 33-86092, 333-03693 and 333-11615)
on Form S-8 of Aerovox Incorporated of our report dated February 14, 2000
relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the Annual
Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 14, 2000 relating to the financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K.

BY/S/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
--------------------------------


Boston, Massachusetts
April 16, 2001
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Matter of A.L.D.L.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 826

- CV

Trial court case number: 1 4

- FD

- 2183

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Galveston County

Proceeding pro se , appellant, P.D., fi led a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor child. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1(b), 26.3, 28.4. T he trial court clerk filed

, on October 13, 2015, the cle rk’s record and , on December 9, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record on indigence

. T he court reporter filed the reporter’s record on December 18, 2015. T he Clerk of this Court received from appellant

, on December 16 , 2015, a pro se brief and, o n December 30, 2015, a supplement to th at brief . The Clerk of this Court is directed to file the brief and supplement as of the dates received

. Appellee’s brief, if any, is due within 20 days of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.6(b).

Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent

- child relationship, the Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of September 28

, 2015, the date the notice of appeal was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonably
po ssible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (Vernon 2013). Accordingly, no extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED

.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually

Date: January 7, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delano H. Brown, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered March 20, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the *953crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the contraband taken from the trunk of the vehicle. Based on reliable information supplied by an informant and their own observations of defendant’s actions, the police had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and therefore to arrest defendant *(see, People v Hines,*155 AD2d 722, 725, *lv denied*76 NY2d 736; *People v Brown,*151 AD2d 199, 203, *lv denied*75 NY2d 768). The subsequent search of the entire vehicle at the police station, including the trunk, was then proper to look for further evidence relating to the crime *(see, People v Ellis,*62 NY2d 393, 398; *People v Ali,*131 AD2d 857, 859, *affd*71 NY2d 1010).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

July 8 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk Ju ly 8 , 2020

1 60 846 (25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 160 846

v COA: 3 50364

Wayne CC: 15

- 006895

- FC

CHRISTOPHER REMINGTON LAWRENCE

,

Defendant

- Appell ant

. _______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to file an amended

application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The amended application will be accepted

for filing if submitted on or before August 3, 2020.