alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009006EN.01000802.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux — France) — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-18/08) (1)

1

(Tax on motor vehicles - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Article 6(2)(b) - Commission decision approving an exemption - No direct effect)

(2009/C 6/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) — Interpretation of Commission Decision 2005/449/EC, concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 2005 L 158, p. 23) — Whether that decision has direct effect or, as an authorisation decision, requires a measure transposing it into national law?

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision 2005/449/EC of 20 June 2005 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures cannot be relied on by an individual against the French Republic, to which that decision was addressed, in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption approved by that decision upon its notification or publication.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Richard K. Reece, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Belden Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annualreport is being prepared;
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) thatoccurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors:
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
April 26, 2004         **/s/**RICHARD K. REECE   Richard K. Reece   Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000565

25-OCT-2018

07:50 AM
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 HONORING MARSHALLS DISTRIBUTION CENTER

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 14, 2012

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
proclamation.
  Whereas, we encourage viable businesses in our community to provide 
our citizens with the goods and services they need to survive and 
thrive; and
  Whereas, in 1982, Marshalls Distribution Center set up shop in 
Decatur, Georgia to serve the citizens of DeKalb County, Georgia and 
communities far and near; and
  Whereas, the lives of thousands have been touched by this good 
corporate citizen which is an active partner in the community; and
  Whereas, Marshalls Distribution Center continues to be a resource for 
citizens in DeKalb County with excellent service, providing employment 
opportunities and providing products that contribute to the local and 
national economies; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia is 
officially honoring and congratulating Marshalls Distribution Center on 
their 30th Anniversary as a business anchor in our District;
  Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim 
September 14, 2012 as Marshalls Distribution Center Day in the 4th 
Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 14th day of September, 2012.

                          ____________________
```
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

July 11, 2014

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Applications of Delta Air Lines, Inc., VRG Linhas Aereas S.A., ExpressJet 

Airlines, Inc., and Endeavor Air, Inc.

For Blanket Codesharing

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0095

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service lists to the above 

referenced applications and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

applications be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 info@airlineinfo.com
**EXHIBIT
23.2**
  
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-81214) pertaining to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust of
The Leather Factory, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-07147) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan of The Leather Factory, Inc.
of our report dated February 11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of The Leather Factory, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.
 
 
 /s/
Weaver & Tidwell LLP
 
 WEAVER
& TIDWELL LLP
 
 
 Fort
Worth, Texas
 March 28,
2005
# C_2009167EN.01001101.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/11

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2009 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness (Notfall Bonbons)

(Case T-372/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 167/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: H. Daniel and O.I. Haleen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH (Salzhemmendorf, Germany) (represented by: M. De Zorti, T. Grimm and M. Koch, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2008 (Case R 909/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH are ordered to pay their own costs, and half each of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH are ordered to pay their own costs, and half each of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
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 Medical Connections
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

          3.   A signed original 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.




Date:  May 14,  2007

                                                     By: /s/ JOSEPH AZZATA
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         JOSEPH AZZATA
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR ISTIDES SOTO M A

NSILLA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-74272 Age n c y No. A071-586-816 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia Subm ission W ithdra

wn a nd De fe rre d April 22, 2016 R e subm itte d Nove m

be r 14, 2016 B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Ariste de s Soto M ansilla

(“ Soto” ) pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his a pplic a tion for spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l un de r the Nic ara gua n Adjustm e n t a

n d C e ntra l Am e ric an 

# FIL ED NOV 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.R e lie f Ac t (“ NAC AR A” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we de ny the pe tition. R e lie f unde r NAC AR

A is una va i la ble to a ny a pplic ant who ha s “ inc ite d, a ssiste d, or othe rwise pa

rtic ipat e d in the pe rse c u t ion of a ny pe rson on a c c o unt of ra c e , re ligion, na

tiona lity , m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic u la r soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion.”8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(B )(i); se e also 8 C .F.R . § 1240.66(a). Soto told an im m igration offic e r that a s a se rge ant in theGuat e m a la n m ilita ry , he inform e d on suspe c te d gue rilla s , knowing tha t the y would like ly

be torture d. Afte r gue rilla s we re ide n tifie d, the m ilita ry would se nd a

spe c i a l G-2 inte llige nc e te a m , who would ta ke the suspe c te d gue rilla s to the ba s e to be inve stiga te d a nd torture d. He ide n tifie d at le a st som e of the suspe c te d gue rilla s be c a use the y “ h a d

flie rs.” This e vide nc e indic a te s tha

t Soto wa s both pe rsona lly involve d in a

n d purpose fully a ssiste d pe rse c u tion on a c c ount of politic a l opinion, Miranda Alv arado v . Gonzale s , 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th C ir. 2006), shifting the burde n to him to prove that he wa s not a

pe rse c utor, s e e 8 C .F.R . § 1240.8(d). Soto fa ile d to c arry tha t burde n . The re fore , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Soto a ssiste d in pe rse c u tion a

nd wa s ine ligible for NAC AR A spe c i a l rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. DE NIE D .
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARISTIDES SOTO MANSILLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-74272

Agency No. A071-586-816

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted March 15, 2016

San Francisco, California

Submission Withdrawn and Deferred April 22, 2016

Resubmitted November 14, 2016

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Aristedes Soto Mansilla (“Soto”) petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for special rule

cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American

FILED

NOV 14 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Relief Act (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we

deny the petition.

Relief under NACARA is unavailable to any applicant who has “incited,

assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a). Soto told

an immigration officer that as a sergeant in the Guatemalan military, he informed

on suspected guerillas, knowing that they would likely be tortured. After guerillas

were identified, the military would send a special G-2 intelligence team, who

would take the suspected guerillas to the base to be investigated and tortured. He

identified at least some of the suspected guerillas because they “had fliers.” This

evidence indicates that Soto was both personally involved in and purposefully

assisted persecution on account of political opinion, Miranda Alvarado v.

Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), shifting the burden to him to prove

that he was not a persecutor, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Soto failed to carry that

burden. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Soto

assisted in persecution and was ineligible for NACARA special rule cancellation of

removal.

DENIED.
#### Ralph HENDERSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12197.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 9, 1955.

W. H. Cooper, Anadarko, for plaintiff in error.

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

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction sustained by Ralph Henderson in the County *168Court of Caddo County for the unlawful possession of whiskey.

Two propositions are presented: 1. The court erred in overruling- the motion to suppress evidence. 2. The court erred in giving instructions five and six.

The motion to suppress evidence was based upon the contention of the accused that the search warrant described premises on which there were located two houses belonging to separate families. The motion came on for hearing prior to the trial in the absence of any representative of the State. Apparently the proceedings were informal as counsel for the accused would question one witness and without finishing the questioning of the witness would turn and address himself to another witness in the room. At one point, two of the witnesses for the accused commenced to ask questions of each other. Counsel clearly states his contention in his brief but we never could have ascertained it from a reading of the record as the record presents a case of confusion compounded. Instead of introducing evidence by reference to the correct legal description of the premises, there was continued reference to the situation in the following manner: “Here is a house.” “That is supposed to be 40 acres.” “There is one on this 40 here.” “There is a house just north of there, Judge. It is north of there about half a mile.” At the conclusion of the round-table discussion, counsel stated, “I tell you what I would like to do, since there is some misunderstanding, I’d like for Herman to go out here and check this house.” After some further discussion, counsel stated, “ * * * you continue this and I will send some biased people out there and have that house examined. * * * ” The court thereupon denied the request for a further continuance and stated that in his opinion the search warrant sufficiently described the premises.

The situation here presented is similar to that presented in Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 268 P.2d 585, where we stated that the confusion was so great that we were unable to determine the facts and accordingly upheld the trial court in overruling the motion to suppress evidence because the burden of proof was upon the movant to introduce evidence showing the illegality of the search.

Instructions five and six to which complaint is made by the accused referred to the prima facie effect of the possession of more than a quart of whiskey. Counsel has failed to point out wherein the instructions are allegedly defective and an examination of them shows that they are copied almost verbatim from instructions which have been approved by this court in many cases. Henderson v. State, Okl.Cr., 285 P.2d 866; Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87, 185 P.2d 476; Hughes v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 25, 184 P.2d 625.

Affirmed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Verdisys, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David M. Adams, Chief Operating Officer and Principal Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.

|\s\ David M. Adams         
|---------------------------
|                           
|David M. Adams             
|Co-Chief Executive Officer 
|Chief Operating Officer    
|Principal Executive Officer
|                           
|August 10, 2004            

---
International Association of

Fire Fighters, Local

624Appellee/s



# Fourth Court of **Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 30, 2013

No. 04

- 12

- 00783

- CV

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS , Local 624

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 16015

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

No. 04

- 13

- 00109

- CV

IN RE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The City of San Antonio’s Unopposed Motion to Reset Oral Argument is GRANTED.

The above cases have been set for formal submission and oral argument before this Court

on July 25, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Stone, Justice Angel ini,

and Justice Martinez.

1 The proceeding in Cause No. 04

- 13

- 00109

- CV arises out of Cause No. 2012

- CI

- 16015 , styled Int’l Ass’n

of Fire Fighters, Local 624 v. City of San Antonio , pending in the 45 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas,

the Honorable Barbara Ha nson Nellermoe presiding. However, the orders complained of were signed by the

Honorable Laura Salinas, presiding judge of the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.Both cases will be argued together and the total time limit for each side will equal the

ordinary time limit for a single appeal. Argument is limited to twenty (20) minutes to each side

with a ten (10) minute rebuttal. If yo u do not wish to present argument, you must notify this

court in writing within seven (7) days of receiving this order.

It is so ORDERED on May 30, 2013

. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Madison BancShares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert B. McGivney,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by 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.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
         Report.









Date:  April 21, 2003                   By:  /s/ Robert B. McGivney
      -------------------                   ------------------------------------
                                            Robert B. McGivney, President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer