alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2008 – Renta v TEARC**

**(Case C‐151/08)**

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 33(1) – Meaning of ‘turnover taxes’ – Duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes (Council Directive 77/388,
Art. 33(1)) (see paras 36-38, 43, 46, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña – Interpretation of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – Definition of ‘turnover tax’ – Domestic duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions. |

**Operative part**

Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC
of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the charging of the variable or proportional
amount of the duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions when it is chargeable on the conclusion of a purchase
by an undertaking whose business activity consists of buying and selling immovable property or purchasing immovable property
for development or letting.
**Exhibit 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory S. Daily, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of iPayment, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 14, 2006 By:  /s/ Gregory S. Daily    Gregory S. Daily    Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 14, 2015. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 14, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0028. DIIONE PIERRE CLAY v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14B04991
FILED IN1st COURT OF APPEALS      HOUSTON, TEXAS3/19/2015 3:50:37 PMCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE              Clerk
# C_2008260EN.01001201.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/12

---

Action brought on 13 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

(Case C-374/08)

(2008/C 260/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and B.D. Simon, acting as Agent(s))

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (1) or by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (1) or by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order Republic of Hungary to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit for implementing the directive expired on 31 December 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 177, p. 201.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

The following table sets forth our ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the
periods indicated:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           FISCAL YEAR ENDED

                                                   December 29,   December 30,     January 1,     January 2,    December 27,
                                                       2001           2000            2000           1999           1997
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>            <C>              <C>            <C>           <C>
   EARNINGS:
   Earnings before income taxes                       65,295         42,239         31,251          27,375         22,198
   Fixed charges, exclusive of capitalized
   interest                                           11,493          8,913          6,481           4,411          2,978
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      76,788         51,152         37,732          31,786         25,176
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest charged to expense                         8,807          6,593          5,388           4,411          2,978
   Interest portion of rental expense                  2,686          2,320          1,093              --             --
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Fixed charges, exclusive of capitalized
   interest                                           11,493          8,913          6,481           4,411          2,978
   Capitalized interest                                  483            782            322           1,044             -
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      11,976          9,695          6,803           5,455          2,978
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    6.4            5.3            5.5             5.8            8.5
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
# Greenup - Appalachian Regional Commission

- FIVCO Area Development District Executive Director Kelly T. Ward Email &#107;e&#x6c;l&#x79;&#64;&#x66;i&#x76;&#99;&#x6f;&#46;&#x6f;&#114;&#x67;The post FIVCO Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas T. Dawley, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: Permission to appeal from the order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction was denied on May 29, 1991. (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Attempted Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Combined Financial Statements at June 30, 1997 for the year ended June 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000909123
<NAME>              PEORIA REAL ESTATE
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                        89
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,377
<PP&E>                                          24,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,288
<SALES>                                         22,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,774
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                       245
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4480 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4480

     To provide for a study by the National Academies on workplace 
                              challenges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2017

  Mr. Kind (for himself, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Foster, Mr. Meehan, Mr. 
 Kilmer, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Himes, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Soto, and 
Mr. Ferguson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a study by the National Academies on workplace 
                              challenges.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Exploring the Future of Work Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL ACADEMIES STUDY ON WORKER DISPLACEMENT DUE TO 
              TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academies to conduct a study of shifting 
workforce industry challenges and opportunities related to the 
displacement of United States workers due to technological innovation. 
Such study shall--
            (1) assess demographic, training, technology, and workforce 
        needs;
            (2) identify industry sectors likely to be significantly 
        impacted by automation; and
            (3) provide recommendations for policy solutions.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress and make 
publicly available a report on the results of the study described in 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Terry Lee OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-11410.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 16, 2005.

Terry Lee Owens, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

*460Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terry Lee Owens, federal prisoner #29251-077, appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his sentence for distributing 124.9 grams of cocaine base. He argues that under *Blakely*v. *Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the district court erroneously based his sentence on 2.86 kilograms of cocaine base and his role in the offense. He argues that he qualifies for the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is actually innocent of the non-existent offenses of (1) distributing 2.86 kilograms of cocaine base and (2) the two-point enhancement for his role as a manager or supervisor. He asserts that it would be inadequate and ineffective for him to seek permission from this court via a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. *See Wesson v. United States Penitentiary,*305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir.2002).

Owens’s argument is unavailing in light of this court’s decision in *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426-427 (5th Cir.2005) (No. 04-50567).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10085 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCUS HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-066-1-A

- - - - - - - - - - September 24, 1997 Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcus Harris appeals from the district court’s denial of his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Harris argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not understand that his unconditional guilty plea would waive his right to appeal his claim pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act. Harris further argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.No. 97-10085 -2- We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) and informed Harris that he was waiving his right to a speedy and public trial by pleading guilty. United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Bond , 87 F.3d 695, 701 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


To Stockholders and Board of Directors
Bogen Communications International, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-21245) on Form S-8 of Bogen Communications International, Inc. of our report
dated March 14, 2000 (except Note 19, which is as of March 30, 2000), relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Bogen Communications International, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidate
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1999 and related
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1999, annual report on Form
10-K of Bogen Communications International, Inc. Our report refers to a report
of other auditors.



KPMG LLP
Short Hills, New Jersey
March 30, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4528 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 601
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4528

                          [Report No. 115-775]

   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2017

   Mr. Soto introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             June 22, 2018

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, and for other purposes.

 

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

SECTION 1. BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012.

    Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 
1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and retained'' after ``landed''.

SEC. 2. SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks'', approved 
January 4, 2011 (Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668), is amended--
            (1) by striking section 104 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    ``Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall 
be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way the 
authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such conservation 
and management measures as the Secretary considers necessary and 
appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 
1854(g)).''; and
            (2) in section 1, by striking the item relating to section 
        104 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 104. Rule of construction.''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 601

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4528

                          [Report No. 115-775]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 22, 2018

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2008183EN.01001001.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2008 — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

(Case C-156/08)

(2008/C 183/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monika Vollkommer

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the imposition of German real property transfer tax on future building work as a result of its inclusion in the taxable amount for real property transfer tax on the purchase of a plot of land not yet built on (so-called single supply consisting of building work and purchase of land) contrary to the prohibition on multiple taxation in Article 401 of the Directive on the common system of value added tax (1) (formerly Article 33(1) of the Sixth Directive) (2) where the building work subject to real property transfer tax is also subject to German turnover tax as an independent supply?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

2

---