alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009153EN.01001502.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-313/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/58/EC - Company law - Documents and particulars subject to disclosure - Letters and order forms - Penalties - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 153/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Vesco and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, Agent, and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies (OJ 2003 L 221, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC, as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC, as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          41,095
<SECURITIES>                                     3,389
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           186
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,072
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,912
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,464
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,448
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Alzheimer's Disease and Proteolytic and Metabolic 
Dysfunction.
    Date: March 20, 2024.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Nesar Uddin Akanda, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on 
Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2E405, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, (301) 594-8984, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#432d263022316d2228222d2722032d2a2b6d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4cac1d7c5d68ac5cfc5cac0c5e4cacdcc8ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28024 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  September 28, 2009
    By:
    /s/ J. Marcus ScrudderJ. Marcus ScrudderChief Executive Officer
Craftmade International, Inc.
NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE

PERMIT #:_________________________ 

HORSE IDENTIFICATION: _________________________

CERTIFICATION; TRANSIT STOPS VIA LAND

EXPORTING COUNTRY

1. This is to certify that the horse(s) listed on this permit are to travel under seal from __________________

(exporting country) to ________________ (port of embarkation).

a. Seal Number(s): ______________________

b. Vehicle Plate Number or ID: ____________________________

________________________________________ 

Salaried Veterinary Officer of the National Government

 ______________

 Date

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

PORT OF EMBARKATION 

1. This is to certify that that the horse(s) listed on this permit transited through _______________ (country) in a

sealed vehicle under customs control. Upon arrival, seals were removed and recorded below. Horses were held

separate from other horses of unlike status in a qualified holding facility not used for any equine breeding

purpose while awaiting departure from ______________ (Port of embarkation). Permit is invalid unless the

enclosed statement is signed by a National Veterinary Official or Customs Official of the exporting country at the

port of embarkation.

a. Seal Number(s) ______________________

b. Vehicle Plate Number or ID ____________________________

c. Date of Seal Removal__________

_______________________________________ ______________

Name and Official Title of Authorized Representative* Date

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

TRANSIT STOPS, if applicable 

a. This is to certify that that the horse(s) listed on this permit transited through _______________ (country) in

a sealed vehicle under customs control. Upon arrival, seals were removed and recorded below. Prior to

departure, the vehicle was resealed and seal numbers recorded. Horses were held separate from other

horses of unlike status in a qualified holding facility not used for any equine breeding purpose while in

______________ (Country).

b. Date of Seal Removal: _____________

c. Seal Number(s) Replaced _______________________

d. Date of Seal Replacement: ______________

e. Vehicle Plate Number or ID ____________________________

_______________________________________ ______________

Name and Official Title of Authorized Representative* Date

*Authorized Representatives include a Salaried Veterinary Officer of the National Government or a Customs Official
# C_2010113EN.01000701.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-221/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)

2010/C 113/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, G. Hogan SC)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — National law imposing minimum and maximum retail prices for manufactured tobacco

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing minimum retail prices for cigarettes, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing minimum retail prices for cigarettes, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

| 2. | Declares that, by not providing the information required by the European Commission in order to enable it to fulfil its task of monitoring compliance with Directive 95/59, as amended by Directive 2002/10, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by not providing the information required by the European Commission in order to enable it to fulfil its task of monitoring compliance with Directive 95/59, as amended by Directive 2002/10, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
#### Sparks v. Lindholm

17269

6/17/97

Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded in part
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              SUBSIDIARIES OF
                          GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC. 
                         (a Delaware corporation)


                              Jurisdiction of     Names Under Which
Subsidiary                    Incorporation      Company Does Business
----------                    ---------------    ---------------------
Giant Industries 
  Arizona, Inc.               Arizona            Giant Refining Company
                                                 Ciniza Pipe Line
                                                   Company

  - Ciniza Production 
      Company*                New Mexico   
  - Giant Stop-N-Go of 
      New Mexico, Inc.*       New Mexico
  - San Juan Refining 
      Company*                New Mexico
  - Giant Four Corners, 
      Inc.*                   Arizona          
  - Giant Mid-Continent,
      Inc.*                   Arizona

Giant Exploration & 
  Production Company          Texas                 

_______________

*A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
# C_2010011EN.01000402.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

(Case C-441/08) (1)

1

(Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Loans taken up by a capital company before the accession of the Member State to the European Union - Liability to capital duty under national legislation - Conversion of the loans into shares after accession of the Member State to the European Union - Capital duty payable on that transaction increasing the capital - Immediate application of the new rules)

2010/C 11/06

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o.

Appellant:

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Article 4(1)(c), the second indent of Article 5(3) and Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Loans taken up by a capital company and subjected to capital duty under national legislation before the Member State’s accession to the European Union — Imposition of capital duty on an increase in capital resulting from the conversion of the loans into shares in the company after the Member State’s accession to the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 5(3) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, requires that, in determining the amount of capital duty chargeable on an increase in a company’s capital arising from the conversion into shares — following the Republic of Poland’s accession to the European Union — of loans taken up by that company prior to that accession, account be taken of the previous taxation of those loans on the basis of the national law in force at the material time.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            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 Seamless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Albert Reda, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Albert Reda
---------------------------
Albert Reda,
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 23, 2009
#### In the Matter of Arthur Corniola, Doing Business as C & C Auto Body, Petitioner, v Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Division of Vehicles Safety, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated July 14, 1989, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had willfully failed to complete a repair invoice (15 NYCRR 82.5 [c]), willfully failed to effect quality repairs (15 NYCRR 82.5 [g]X committed a fraudulent or deceptive practice (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 398-e [1] [g]), and failed to have records available for inspection upon request during business hours (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 398-d [3]), and upon the recommendation of the Repair Shop Review Board, imposed a civil penalty of $6,108 and a 30-day suspension of the petitioner’s repair shop registration or, in the alternative, a civil penalty of $500 payable to the State, restitution to the consumer-complainant of $4,858, and a 5-day suspension of the petitioner’s repair shop registration.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

*284The instant proceeding stems from repair work performed by the petitioner upon a vehicle which had been damaged in an automobile accident. The record of the administrative hearing clearly established, among other things, that the petitioner had represented in his invoice that he had replaced certain parts of the automobile which in fact were not replaced, and that he failed to effect quality repairs. Since the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, that determination may not be disturbed *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 140; *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Koh v Perales,*173 AD2d 477).

Furthermore, the petitioner was not deprived of his right to cross-examine certain witnesses *(see, Matter of Gray v Adduci,*73 NY2d 741, 743).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2008 – Kaloudis v OHIM – FFT (RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR)**

**(Case T-380/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR – Previous national word mark Roland Garros – Late payment of the appeal fees – Decision of the Board of Appeal deeming the action to be unfounded

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification – Defects in service (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68) (see paras 30-33)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 876/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Fédération française de tennis (FFT) and Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Dimitrios Kaloudis |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR for goods in Class 25 – Application No 3114477 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Fédération française de tennis (FFT) |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark Roland Garros for goods in Classes 3, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 32, 41 and 42 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal deemed non-existent for delay in paying the appeal fee |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as being in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law and in part manifestly inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis to pay the costs. |
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0058. HENRY DONALD COLEMAN v. EMNA GRAMI.

The trial court entered the final judgment and decree of divorce in this case on

July 12, 2017. On August 14, 2017, Henry Coleman filed this application for

discretionary appeal. However, we lack jurisdiction. 

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA

§ 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not

made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57)

(1989). Because this application was filed 33 days after entry of the order Coleman

seeks to appeal, it is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly,

this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 01, 2017

09/01/2017
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 19, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00924

- CR

Rudy DELGADO , Sr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court

, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 07

- 0141

- CRA

Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on December 19, 2018.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th da y of December, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

December 29, 2023 CR-2023-0145 Jonathan Craig Thomas v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court: CC-17-753.60). 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on December 29, 2023, the following action was taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk