alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 2 June 2008 – Atlantic Dawn and Others v Commission**

**(Case T-172/07)**

Action for annulment – Fishing quotas – Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 2371/2002; Commission
Regulation No 147/2007) (see paras 34-50)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2007 L 46, p. 10). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the applicants, Atlantic Dawn Ltd and Others, to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
October 17, 2016

US Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

To Whom It May Concern:

Dynamic Aviation Group, Inc. is requesting an extension to the exemption from Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations part 137.53(c)(2). This exemption is based on being in the public’s 

best interest to not jettison spray loads over congested areas and the ability to show an 

equivalent level of safety with not installing a jettison system. 

Thank you very much for your attention to this. If you need any additional information, or have 

any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely,

Autumn Johnson

Aerial Applicator

Dynamic Aviation Group, Inc. 

P.O. Box 7

Bridgewater, VA 22812

Phone: (540) 828-6070

Fax: (540) 828-4031

ajohnson@dynamicaviation.com
# C_2009267EN.01001801.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Jacques Damseaux v État belge

(Case C-128/08) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Taxation of investment income - Double taxation convention - Obligation of the Member States under Article 293 EC)

2009/C 267/30

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

Applicant:

Defendant: État belge

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 56, 58 and 293 EC — Heavier taxation of investment income from abroad than of investment income paid by a company established in the Member State of residence — Obstacle to free movement of capital — Scope of conventions preventing double taxation — Obligation of Member States under Article 293 EC

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

In so far as Community law, in its current state and in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC does not preclude a bilateral tax convention, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a shareholder residing in another Member State are liable to be taxed in both Member States, and which does not provide that the Member State in which the shareholder resides is unconditionally obliged to prevent the resulting juridical double taxation.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 31, 1998 AND 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,297
<SECURITIES>                                     5,149
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                       643
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,154
<PP&E>                                           6,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,097
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,639
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,898)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,080
<SALES>                                          6,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,660
<CGS>                                            1,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (51)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    302
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (44)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                258
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       258
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008008EN.01002601.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/26

---

Action brought on 21 November 2007 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (REDENVELOPE)

(Case T-416/07)

(2008/C 8/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RedEnvelope Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Letter Days Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 14 September 2007, No R 765/2005-1, in so far as the decision provided for the admission of new evidence in support of the grounds of opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 14 September 2007, No R 765/2005-1, in so far as the decision provided for the admission of new evidence in support of the grounds of opposition;

| — | order that the defendant pays the applicant's costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendant pays the applicant's costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘REDENVELOPE’ for services in classes 35 and 42 — application No 1 601 392

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Red Letter Days Ltd

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The registered and non-registered national word and figurative marks ‘RED LETTER’, ‘RED LETTER DAYS’ and ‘RED LETTER DAYS PLC’ for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration in so far as it regards Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal admitted new evidence, which will allow the Opposition Division to make a decision based on evidence, which was not available earlier in the proceedings and to which the applicant has not had an opportunity to respond before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>  
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         540,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  913,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,482,851
<PP&E>                                         420,859
<DEPRECIATION>                               (202,851)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,739,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,056,872
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,444
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,643,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,739,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,110,740
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,021,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                270,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   225,617
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### Coy Dean KNIGHT, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12797.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 9, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, *1960.*

*488Louie Gossett, Durant, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

'BRETT, Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Coy Dean Knight, defendant below, was charged by indictment in the District Court of Bryan County,, Oklahoma, with the crime of burglary in the first degree, said crime allegedly being committed by him on December 21, 1958, in said county and state. He was tried by a jury, convicted as charged, and sentenced to serve a term of seven years in the state penitentiary, from which judgment and sentence he now appeals.

Judgment and sentence were entered herein on April 3, 1959, and defendant was allowed sixty days in which to make and serve casemade. On June 2, 1959, defendant was allowed an additional fifteen days, ancl on June 17, 1959, defendant was allowed another fifteen days extension of time to make and serve casemade. This last extension of time, expired on July 2, 1959, but the casemade was not served until July 15, 1959, which date was not within the time allowed by the court, but thirteen days out of time. This failure was not due to any neglect of duty on the part of the trial judge or court reporter.

This Court has many times held that where a casemade for appeal is not served within time allowed by trial court for serving casemade nor within time fixed by any valid extension of time, the same is a nullity. Pearce v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 1053; Thorp v. State, 5 Okl.Cr. 596, 115 P. 609.

The record was certified to by the trial judge and is not subject to collateral attack. Affidavits filed in this respect attempting to impeach the record will not be considered. Terrell v. State, 16 Okl.Cr. 287, 177 P. 125; Thorp v. State, supra. Under these conditions, the appeal cannot; be .considered as by casemade.

’ Nevertheless, the matter has been submitted as an appeal by transcript. We have carefully examined the transcript and find no fundamental error, and the case must be affirmed. Leach v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 237, 246 P.2d 416; Brown v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. 389, 208 P.2d 1143.

The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

 

**REPORT AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

The Board of Directors andStockholders

Ibis Technology Corporation:

 

The auditsreferred to in our report dated February 17, 2006, except as to note 3 which isas of March 14, 2006, included the related financial statement schedule foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, included inthe annual report on Form 10-K.  Thefinancial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinionon the financial statement schedule based on our audits.  In our opinion, such financial statementschedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements takenas a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forththerein.

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-108438)on Form S-3, (No. 333-09237) on Form S-3, (No. 333-82497) on Form S-3, (No.333-09239) on Form S-8, (No. 333-45247) on Form S-8, (No. 333-36706) on FormS-8, (No. 333-61184) on Form S-8, and (No. 333-116568) on Form S-8 of IbisTechnology Corporation of our report dated February 17, 2006, except as to note3 which is as of March 14, 2006, with respect to the balance sheets of IbisTechnology Corporation as of December 31, 2004 and 2005, and the relatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual reporton Form 10-K of Ibis Technology Corporation.

 

 
|                   |   |   | /s/ KPMG LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------------|--------|
|                   |   |   |         |   |   |   |
| Boston,  Massachusetts |   |   |         |   |   |   |
| March 29,  2006        |   |   |         |   |   |   |

 

1

----
# C_2021028EN.01000801.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz — France) — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

(Case C-463/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation - Articles 14 and 28 - National collective agreement granting the right to leave following the statutory maternity leave for female workers who bring up their children on their own - Exclusion of male workers from the right to that leave - Protection of female workers as regards both the consequences of pregnancy and the condition of maternity - Conditions under which applicable)

(2021/C 28/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

Defendant: Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

Intervening party: Mission nationale de contrôle et d’audit des organismes de sécurité sociale

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 28 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, read in the light of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a provision of a national collective agreement which reserves to female workers who bring up their child on their own the right to leave after the expiry of the statutory maternity leave, provided that such leave is intended to protect workers in connection with the effects of pregnancy and motherhood, which is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account, inter alia, the conditions for entitlement to the leave, its length and modalities of enjoyment, and the legal protection that attaches to that period of leave.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
#### James Edward SKINNER, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and the State of Oklahoma, Respondents.

No. A-13053.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 7, 1962.

*41James Edward Skinner, petitioner pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition by James Edward Skinner, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary which is titled a “Writ of Habeas Corpus Certiorari in Aid” for which there is no provision in our criminal code.

The record reflects and it is averred that defendant is confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary as a result of a judgment of the District Court of Oklahoma County wherein petitioner entered a plea of guilty of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Petitioner in his pleadings alleges that the state of Texas has placed a hold order on him with the warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary which deprives him of certain rights and privileges and restrains petitioner of his liberty, and he prays for an order from this court removing said hold.

 Though our criminal code provides no such procedure as habeas corpus by aid of certiorari it has been the policy of the court to determine the nature of a cause by the allegation in the petition, particularly where it is filed pro se without aid of counsel by inmates of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary or inexperienced defendants. We therefore consider this matter as an action in mandamus.

This court has recently passed upon this same question in the case of Martin v. Raines, Warden, Okl.Cr., 367 P.2d 513, wherein the court said:

> “This Court is without authority to grant the relief prayed. We know of no such holding to support such theory. We can think of no better way to destroy commity of enforcement of the law between the states than to so hold. A sister state may file a valid detainer or hold order against one serving a valid sentence in the pentientiary at any time. This we cannot prevent under the law. However, if it were not well founded in the law, the question might be raised at the time extradition is attempted.”

Since the Court is not vested with the authority to act herein, the action is accordingly dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Ibis Technology Corporation (the *“Company”*) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the *“Report”*), I, William J Schmidt 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 condition and results of operations of the Company

 
| Dated: March 29, 2006        |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/ ***William J. Schmidt*** | *** *** |
| William J. Schmidt           |
| Chief Financial  Officer     |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-35357, 333-80577, and 333-59502 of Giant Industries, Inc. each on Form S-8,
of our report dated March 5, 2003, which expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes explanatory paragraphs relating to changes in accounting methods for
the adoption of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards Nos. 142 and 144,
on the financial statements and our report dated March 5, 2003 on the financial
statement schedules, each report appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Giant Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 28, 2003
#### Patricia F. Baker, Individually and as Executrix of Edward C. Baker, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v Sport-service Corporation, Appellant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Appeals unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Hughes v*
      *655
      *Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988; *see also,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J. — Negligence.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 28 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170695) and Amendment No. 448 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.














/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




December 27, 2016