alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009032EN.01002001.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2008 — Atenor Group SA v Belgian State — SPF Finances

(Case C-514/08)

(2009/C 32/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Atenor Group SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

Defendant:

Question referred

Does the first indent of Article 4 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (1) preclude national legislation making the deduction of dividends received as definitively taxed income subject to the existence of a taxable profit of the parent company?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.

1

---
Docket Index for

EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2015

- 0280



## Section F : Public Comments on the Proposed Action
# C_2019035EN.01003202.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/32

---

Action brought on 27 November 2018 — Wyld v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (wyld)

(Case T-711/18)

(2019/C 35/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wyld GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co. KG

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘wyld’ — Application for registration No 14 525 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 2621/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and to allow the application for registration of the European Union trade mark No 14 525 562 ‘wyld’, which has so far been refused; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and to allow the application for registration of the European Union trade mark No 14 525 562 ‘wyld’, which has so far been refused;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
NO. 07-01-0170-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 1, 2001

	______________________________

	IN RE: RAYMOND CHARLES LEE, RELATOR

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Relator Raymond Charles Lee applies for a writ of mandamus directing respondent, Honorable Abe Lopez, to consider and act upon a “Motion to Enter Nunc Pro Tunc Order.”  We deny the petition.  

	By Petition for Mandamus relator claims that he filed a Motion to Enter Nunc Pro Tunc Order in cause numbers 38071 E and 38073 E in the 108th District Court of Potter County, Texas.  The documents presented with the petition include copies of (1) a letter from relator directed to the District Clerk of Potter County purportedly filing such motion, and which copy appears to bear a filing mark by the office of the District Clerk indicating a date of October 29, 1999, and (2) a letter from relator directed to the District Clerk inquiring whether any action has “applied to” the motion.  The documents accompanying relator’s petition do not contain any document reflecting a request that respondent act on the Motion to Enter Nunc Pro Tunc, or that the Motion has been presented to respondent for action.  Nor does relator’s petition applying for writ of mandamus show that it has been served on respondent.  	

	A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.  Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994).   To establish an abuse of discretion, the complaining party must demonstrate that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to guiding rules and principles.  Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).  It is the relator’s burden to show entitlement to the relief being requested.  See generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding).  And, a court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention.  Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied).

	Relator has not furnished proof that his motion has been presented to respondent for consideration or hearing, or that he has requested that it be presented to respondent for consideration or hearing.  His petition requesting that a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondent to take action does not reflect that respondent has been served with a copy.  The petition and documents furnished do not prove that respondent is even aware of the existence of relator’s Motion to Enter Nunc Pro Tunc Order.  

	As noted above, a trial court is not required to consider, and does not abuse its discretion in failing to consider or rule on, a motion not called to the court’s attention.  Relator has not proved his entitlement to a writ of mandamus.

	Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.  TRAP 52.8(a). 

								Phil Johnson

								    Justice

Do not publish.
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian corporation (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2008 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: June 3, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Briggs, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a *168judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), rendered February 23, 1989, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on November 28, 1987, the defendant and two others accosted Edgar Santiago and his companion, Lenora Askew, as they were leaving the Burger Jack restaurant on McDonough Street and Malcolm X Boulevard in Brooklyn. As the defendant held a knife to Santiago’s throat, his two accomplices went through Santiago’s pockets and removed $550. After they had taken Santiago’s money, the defendant lunged at him with his knife, but Santiago interposed the Burger Jack bag he was carrying, impaling it on the blade. One of the defendant’s accomplices drew a pistol and shot Santiago once in the face. Santiago was hospitalized for ten days for treatment of his wound. About a month later, Askew identified the defendant in a lineup.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite mental culpability to support a conviction of attempted murder, that the trial court committed *per se*reversible error in submitting to the jury a verdict sheet containing, in parentheses, elements of some of the crimes charged, and that his sentence was excessive. The defendant’s contentions are without merit.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shared his firearm-wielding accomplice’s homicidal intent. The complainant testified that the defendant lunged at him with his knife *after*the robbery was essentially complete, and it was only when Santiago resisted this potentially deadly attack that the defendant’s accomplice pulled out his gun and shot the victim — apparently assisting the defendant in his attempt to kill Santiago. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s objection to the verdict sheet was untimely, having been made after the jury began its deliberations, with the result that the defendant’s claim of error is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *cf, People v McKenzie,*
      *169148 AD2d 472). Moreover, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see, People v Monroe,*135 AD2d 741; *cf, People v McKenzie, supra).*

Finally, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, there is no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2008092EN.01001601.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/16

---

Action brought on 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-36/08)

(2008/C 92/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H.Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/03 (Government Gazette 304/Α) which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (1) [of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications], and by not withdrawing diplomas issued although the conditions set out in that directive were not satisfied, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/03 (Government Gazette 304/Α) which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (1) [of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications], and by not withdrawing diplomas issued although the conditions set out in that directive were not satisfied, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive.

1

| — | Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the Commission, the doctors who are referred to in Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/03 have acquired rights within the meaning of Article 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC, and accordingly are allowed to practise as doctors under the national social security scheme and to receive a certificate attesting to their acquired rights. However, to grant them the qualification of general practitioner without their undergoing the relevant specific training is contrary to Articles 30 and 31 of the Directive. Accordingly, the Greek authorities must withdraw the diplomas issued although the conditions of the Directive were not satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, William M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated:  August 11,  2006 | /s/ WILLIAM M. CALDWELL, IV |
|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                               | William M. Caldwell, IV     |
|                               | Chief Executive Officer     |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Household Credit Corporation, Petitioner, against G. Russell Clark, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 20, 1959.

*34
      *Louis R. Teig*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Mark T. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

Henry Epstein, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks review of a determination of the Superintendent of Banks denying it a license as a sales finance company under article XI-B of the Banking Law. Said determination was based on the findings that petitioner violated the Banking Law by previously operating as a sales finance company without a license, and also violated the Personal Property Law by acquiring retail installment contracts containing assignments of wages and excessive credit service charges. The term “ sales finance company” is defined in the Banking Law as one engaged ‘ * in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring retail instalment contracts # * * made by and between other parties, or any interest therein ” (§ 491, subd. 7). Specifically excluded are pledges of an aggregate number of contracts to secure a bona fide loan. Petitioner contends that it comes within the purview of this exclusion and that, in any event, it was not in violation of the above-mentioned laws since the contracts involved merely ‘ *‘*replaced ’ ’ several defunct contracts acquired prior to the effective date of the licensing statute.

Petitioner’s explanations are completely untenable. Several times at the hearing below its president and sole stockholder referred to the fact that petitioner’s business was the purchase of retail credit paper. He cannot now in this proceeding overturn administrative findings merely by recharacterizing his activities without showing any rational basis therefor. Also, the fact that the contracts involved might have replaced previous “ bad ” contracts pursuant to petitioner’s agreements with certain retail dealers is of no import, since the statute specifically makes any unlicensed acquisition of such contracts a violation after a specific date (Banking Law, § 492, subd. 1; § 491, subd. 7). Moreover, it is uncontradicted that the contracts herein violated the Personal Property Law in that they contained excessive credit service charges (§ 404). (Respondent’s further finding that the wage assignment provisions of the contracts violated § 403, subd. 3, par. [c] of the Personal Property Law must be *35rejected because said section did not become effective until a date subsequent to the date of these contracts.)

In view of the fact that the record herein discloses substantial evidence to support respondent’s finding, the petition herein must be dismissed (Banking Law, § 493, subd. 1, par. [a]).
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated October 20, 2000,  accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements  included  in the  Annual  Report  of  First  Independence
Corporation and Subsidiary on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2000.
We hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  of said  report in the
Registration Statements of First Independence Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No.
33-58095, effective March 13, 1995 and File No. 33-75404, effective February 16,
1994).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Wichita, Kansas
December 29, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Bowman, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 16, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The contentions raised by the defendant are not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 248-252), and we decline to consider them in *924the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5870-S5871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Chambliss):
       S. Res. 535. A resolution recognizing the goals and ideals 
     of the Movement is Life Caucus; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[[Page S5871]]

           By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Johnson of South 
             Dakota, and Mr. Begich):
       S. Res. 536. A resolution designating September 9, 2012, as 
     ``National Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day''; 
     considered and agreed to.
           By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bennet, 
             Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
             Cardin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, 
             Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moran, 
             Mr. Schumer, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. 
             Webb, Mr. Whitehouse, and Ms. Murkowski):
       S. Res. 537. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals 
     of National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month; considered and 
     agreed to.
           By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kerry, 
             Mr. Lugar, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Tester, Mr. 
             Lieberman, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Roberts, 
             Mr. Crapo, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Isakson, 
             Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Moran, Mr. Brown of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Murkowski, 
             and Mrs. Feinstein):
       S. Res. 538. A resolution designating September 2012 as 
     ``National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month''; considered and 
     agreed to.
           By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. 
             Levin):
       S. Res. 539. A resolution designating October 13, 2012, as 
     ``National Chess Day''; considered and agreed to.
           By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
       S. Res. 540. A resolution designating the week of August 6 
     through August 10, 2012, as ``National Convenient Care Clinic 
     Week''; considered and agreed to.
           By Mr. HARKIN:
       S. Con. Res. 55. A concurrent resolution directing the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in 
     the enrollment of H.R. 1627; considered and agreed to.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 29 minutes 
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, 
Friday, August 3, 2012, at 10 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4409 

Making supplemental appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers for 

flood control projects and storm damage reduction projects in areas 

affected by flooding in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on 

the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

Making supplemental appropriations for the Army Corps of 

Engineers for flood control projects and storm damage 

reduction projects in areas affected by flooding in the 

city of Jacksonville, Florida, and for other purposes. 

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

3 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any 

4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 

5 fiscal year ending September 30, 2018: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4409 IH

1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

2 CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

3 CONSTRUCTION

4 For an additional amount for ‘‘Construction’’ for 

5 flood control projects and storm damage reduction 

6 projects in areas affected by flooding in the city of Jack7 sonville, Florida, that have received a major disaster dec8 laration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re9 lief and Emergency Assistance Act, $116,968,000, to re10 main available through fiscal year 2027: Provided, That 

11 upon approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 

12 House of Representatives and the Senate these funds may 

13 be used to construct any project by the Corps for reducing 

14 flooding and storm damage risks in the city of Jackson15 ville, Florida, that the Secretary determines is technically 

16 feasible, economically justified, and environmentally ac17 ceptable: Provided further, That projects using these funds 

18 shall be at full Federal expense with respect to such funds: 

19 Provided further, That such amount is designated by the 

20 Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 

21 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

22 Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

23 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flood Water Relief 

24 Act of 2017’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2021044EN.01003804.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — B. O. L. v État belge

(Case C-250/19) (1)

(2021/C 44/46)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---