alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009297EN.01003601.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2009 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission

(Case F-74/08) (1)

1

(Officials - Community tax - Calculation - Combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor’s pension - Rules for collecting the tax - Date of levy)

2009/C 297/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Ramaekers-Jørgensen (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to calculate the applicant’s Community tax by combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor’s pension, and of the decision rejecting the application for the Community tax on her survivor’s pension not to be deducted in advance, prior to the payment thereof, from her remuneration. Second, a finding that Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 260/68, are unlawful.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ramaekers-Jørgensen to bear her own costs and to pay the cost of the Commission of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ramaekers-Jørgensen to bear her own costs and to pay the cost of the Commission of the European Communities;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, p. 52.

1

---
July 23, 1997

19842

#### State v. Benish

Affirmed
# C_2008223EN.01002501.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/25

---

Action brought on 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-250/08)

(2008/C 223/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by taking into account, in the Flemish Region, for the assessment of a tax advantage upon the purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal place of residence, the amount of registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence only where the latter was situated in the Flemish Region but not where it was in a Member State other than Belgium or in an EEA State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by taking into account, in the Flemish Region, for the assessment of a tax advantage upon the purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal place of residence, the amount of registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence only where the latter was situated in the Flemish Region but not where it was in a Member State other than Belgium or in an EEA State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Upon the purchase of a principal place of residence in the Flemish region, the Belgian legislation on registration fees, as in force in the Flemish Region, provides for a reduction of registration fees in an amount corresponding to the registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence in the Flemish Region, provided that the previous principal place of residence is sold in the same period. The Commission considers that this legislation discriminates against Union citizens who exercise the right of free movement, that it discriminates against Union citizens who exercise the right of establishment, and that it restricts investment in immovable property in the Flemish Region with capital from Member States other than Belgium and therefore that this legislation in principle conflicts with Articles 18, and 43 of the EC Treaty and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, and Article 56 of the EC Treaty and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement, respectively. The Commission submits that there are no overriding reasons of public interest that could justify these breaches. Nor can the defendant rely on the need to ensure the cohesion of the tax system, because this case concerns two separate fiscal situations, each of which is governed by its own rules applicable to the situation in question.

---
EXHIBIT 32

# 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Mark E. Jones, III, the Chief Executive Officer (and
principal financial officer) of Brazauro Resources Corporation (the Company)
hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

The
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2006, to which
this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the
end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report

|Dated:  May 16, 2006 | /s/ Mark E. Jones, III
___________________________________
Mark E. Jones, III   
Chief Executive Officer (and principal financial officer)
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### Glen Truman BLAIR, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12992.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 24, 1961.

Wayne E. Wheeling, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., K. D. Greiner, County Atty. for Payne County, A. J. Schott, James Browne, Asst. County Attys., Stillwater, for defendant in error.

NIX, Presiding Judge.

The defendant, Glen Truman Blair, was charged conjointly with Joe Lee Lynch *470by information with the crime of Burglary in the Second Degree which occurred on the 27th day of February, 1960. Defendant was tried in District Court and found guilty by a jury who was unable to agree on the punishment and the punishment was assessed by the trial court at five years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. From the judgment and sentence the defendant has appealed.

There are numerous cases from the Court that rule where defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed or argument presented, the Court of Criminal Appeals will examine the evidence to ascertain if it supports the verdict and examine the information, instructions excepted to, and the judgment, and if no material error is apparent, the judgment will be affirmed. Welborn v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 130, 240 P.2d 1130.

The appeal was filed m this Court on December 1, 1960. The case was on the 12th day of April 1961 submitted on the record, and no briefs filed by either the defendant or the attorney general and no showing made why the brief has not been filed.

Title 21 O.S.A. 1435 states:

> “Burglary in second degree — Acts constituting

> “Every person who breaks and enters any building or any part of any building, room, booth, tent, railroad car, automobile, truck, trailer, vessel or other structure or erection in which any property is kept, with intent to steal therein or to commit any felony, is guilty of burglary in the second degree.”

Title 21 O.S.A. 1436 states:

> “Punishment of burglary”

> “ * * * 2. Burglary in the second degree not exceeding seven years and not less than two years.”

 After a careful examination it is not deemed necessary to set out the evidence in full in this case. Suffice it to say the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence. There are no prejudicial or fundamental errors in the record. The jury was correctly advised as to the law applicable to the facts.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BRETT and BUSSEY, TJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONOFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Peter J. DiCorti, certify that:

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unify Corporation;

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with a respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|   | /s/ PETER J. DICORTI                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Peter J. DiCorti                                |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer*                       |
|   | *(Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer)* |

 

Dated: December 9, 2003

 

1

----
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ANNUAL REPORT OF

LANDRYS RESTAURANTS, INC.

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), each of the undersigned officers of Landrys Restaurants, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

Date: March 15, 2010



/s/ Tilman J. FertittaTilman J. FertittaChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Rick H. LiemRick H. LiemExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


[The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601 (b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Sections 1350, Chapter 63 of the Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.]
EXHIBIT 11
                      STATEMENT RE PER SHARE EARNINGS



                                                    1997              1996

Net income (loss)                           $    (1,388,598)      $    819,264
Preferred dividends                                       0            608,438
Earnings available for common               $    (1,388,598)      $    210,826
  shareholders
Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding                             10,818,498          5,918,003
Common stock equivalents                                  0            721,834
Shares used to calculate per
 share earnings                                  10,818,498          6,639,837
Per share earnings (loss)                   $         (0.13)       $      0.03
# C_2008197EN.01000202.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2008 — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-170/08)

(2008/C 197/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Nijemeisland

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Defendant:

Question referred

Must Article 3a of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (1), read in conjunction with Article 2(r) and (s) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2), be interpreted as preventing only the perpetuation of a reduction or exclusion applied under Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001, or is that provision also applicable to reductions or exclusions applied on the basis of other regulations?

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 41, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

2

---
# C_2008158EN.01002701.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/27

---

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-39/08)

(2008/C 158/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of several decisions relating to the deduction of 32 days of the applicant's leave entitlement for the year 2007.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of 29 May 2007, 20 June 2007, 28 June 2007 and 6 July 2007, two decisions of 26 July 2007 and the decision of 2 August 2007 relating to the deduction of 32 days of the applicant's leave entitlement for the year 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of 29 May 2007, 20 June 2007, 28 June 2007 and 6 July 2007, two decisions of 26 July 2007 and the decision of 2 August 2007 relating to the deduction of 32 days of the applicant's leave entitlement for the year 2007;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs

---
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Louis F. Stumpf, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

December 8, 1959.

*Albertson Simmons & Butler (Sperry Butler*of counsel), for W. Clifford Roderick, petitioner.

*Sydney M. Fried*for Warren W. Stumpf, contestant.

*Warren W. Stumpf*for Cynthia B. Stumpf.

John D. Bekkett, S.

Motion has been made by the contestant in this probate proceeding for an examination before trial of the proponent, W. Clifford Roderick, and a legatee, Annie E. Roderick, under the propounded instrument.

The fact that the proponent has already been examined under section 141 of the Surrogate’s Court Act is no bar to his examination under section 288 of the Civil Practice Act *(Matter of Ferris,*193 Misc. 1044; *Matter of Levine,*15 Misc 2d 281 ; *Matter of Eckman,*N. Y. L. J., Sept. 4, 1959, p. 9, col. 1). Accordingly an examination of the proponent, at a time and place to be fixed in the order to be signed hereon, is granted as to the items requested in the notice of motion.

While it is clear that legatees and devisees are examinable *as adverse parties (Matter of Gehlert, 179*Misc. 193; *Matter of Dooper,*124 Misc. 411; *Matter of Vail,*120 Misc. 430), in all of these cases it appeared that the legatees or devisees had been served with a notice of filing of objections pursuant to section 148 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. No such notice has yet been served on the legatee here sought to be examined.

*1100An examination of the legatee *as a witness residing more than 100 miles from the place of trial*would require her examination in the county in which she resides, or where she has an office for the regular transaction of business, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary (Civ. Prac. Act, § 300).

In any event, as the moving papers were not served upon the legatee who has not appeared by counsel, she has not been given an opportunity to be heard on this application as required (Civ. Prac. Act, § 292; *Matter of Van Bibber,*96 *N.*Y. S. 2d 235). Consequently the motion is dismissed as against her, without prejudice to a renewal at the proper time and upon receipt of proper papers in accordance with this decision.

Settle order on five days’ notice.
Exhibit
      No. 32







CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Universal Express,
      Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Richard Altomare, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting 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:





(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:
              December 21, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Richard
                AltomareRichard
                AltomareChief
              Executive Officer and Chief Accounting
              Officer








This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Treasure Mountain Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Vincent De Caprio,
Chief Executive 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company
          as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of
          the Company for the periods presented.


     November 17, 2004                              /s/ Vincent De Caprio
                                                    ---------------------
                                                    Vincent De Caprio
                                                    Chief Executive Officer




This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


                                       41