alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004228EN.01000502.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-315/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Tax on revenue from capital - Revenue from capital of Austrian origin: tax rate of 25 % in discharge or rate equal to half of the average tax rate on aggregate income - Income from capital originating in another Member State: normal tax rate)

(2004/C 228/10)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-315/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Anneliese Lenz and Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol — on the interpretation of Articles 73b et 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — the Court (First Chamber), composed: of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Articles 73b and 73d(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now, respectively, Articles 56 EC and 58(1) and (3) EC) preclude legislation which allows only the recipients of revenue from capital of Austrian origin to choose between a tax with discharging effect and ordinary income tax with the application of a rate reduced by half, while providing that revenue from capital originating in another Member State must be subject to ordinary income tax without any reduction in the rate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 73b and 73d(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now, respectively, Articles 56 EC and 58(1) and (3) EC) preclude legislation which allows only the recipients of revenue from capital of Austrian origin to choose between a tax with discharging effect and ordinary income tax with the application of a rate reduced by half, while providing that revenue from capital originating in another Member State must be subject to ordinary income tax without any reduction in the rate.

| 2. | Refusal to grant the recipients of revenue from capital originating in another Member State the tax advantages granted to recipients of revenue from capital of Austrian origin cannot be justified by the fact that revenue from companies established in another Member State is subject to low taxation in that State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refusal to grant the recipients of revenue from capital originating in another Member State the tax advantages granted to recipients of revenue from capital of Austrian origin cannot be justified by the fact that revenue from companies established in another Member State is subject to low taxation in that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
----

| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

| 99.1   | Press Release, dated July 26, 2012, issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Page 45 of 49


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


                  We have issued our report dated February 13, 2004 accompanying
the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the annual report
of National Presto Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Registration Statement of National Presto Industries, Inc.
and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-46711, effective March 27, 1992).



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 5, 2004
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2102/2005

of 20 December 2005         

determining the world market price for unginned cotton

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001 (1),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling 21,557 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 December 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 210, 3.8.2001, p. 10. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1486/2002 (OJ L 223, 20.8.2002, p. 3).

----
# Official Journal C 140/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 140 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6421 April 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 140

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6421 April 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 140/01 | Euro exchange rates — 20 April 2021 | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2021/C 140/02 | Update of the list of residence permits referred to in Article 2(16) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 140/01

Euro exchange rates — 20 April 2021

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2021/C 140/02

Update of the list of residence permits referred to in Article 2(16) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 140/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10197 — CSS/Visana/Zur Rose/medi24/WELL JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2021/C 140/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2021/C 140/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10200 — Blackstone/GIP/Cascade/Signature) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 10 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 140/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10197 — CSS/Visana/Zur Rose/medi24/WELL JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

2021/C 140/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

2021/C 140/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10200 — Blackstone/GIP/Cascade/Signature) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6282** 

ANTHONY LEE BELCHER , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. ( 7:13

- cv - 00517

- JCT

- RSB )

Submitted : June 19, 2014 Decided: July 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony Lee Belcher, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Lee Belcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) pe tition as untimely . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional clai ms is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Belcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly , we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that dilutive stock options are exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               (IN THOUSANDS
                                                            EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                                     ----------------------------------
                                                        2001        2000        1999
                                                        ----        ----        ----
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>         <C>
Net earnings (1)                                      $ 6,286     $ 15,158    $ 20,822
                                                     ==================================



Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)          6,856        7,014       7,343

Common share equivalents relating to stock options          1            1           1

Adjusted common and common equivalent                ----------------------------------
   shares for computation (3)                           6,857        7,015       7,344
                                                     ==================================



Net earnings per share:
     Basic (1/2)                                      $  0.92     $   2.16    $   2.84
                                                     ==================================
     Diluted (1/3)                                    $  0.92     $   2.16    $   2.84
                                                     ==================================
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 14

                     PENN ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CORP.

                                 CODE OF ETHICS
                                 --------------

         This Code of Ethics of Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. (the
"Company") applies to the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer,
the Chief Accounting Officer, the Treasurer, the Controller, and all other
executive officers of the Company (each, a "Covered Person"). The Covered
Persons hold important roles in corporate governance. This Code of Ethics is
designed to deter wrongdoing and promote ethical conduct and compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.

         Each Covered Person has the obligation to:

         (a)      Engage in and promote honest and ethical conduct, including
                  the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of
                  interest between personal and professional relationships;

         (b)      Produce full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable
                  disclosure in reports and documents that the Company or its
                  subsidiaries file with, or submit to, the Securities and
                  Exchange Commission and other regulators and in other public
                  communications made by the Company or its subsidiaries;

         (c)      Comply with applicable governmental laws, rules, and
                  regulations, as well as the rules and regulations of the New
                  York Stock Exchange; and

         (d)      Promptly report any possible violation of this Code of Ethics
                  to the Audit Committee or any of the persons designated from
                  time to time by the Company's Board of Directors for such
                  purposes.

         Each Covered Person is prohibited from directly or indirectly taking
any action to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead the Company
or its subsidiaries' independent public accountants for the purpose of rendering
the financial statements of the Company or its subsidiaries misleading.

         Each Covered Person will be held accountable for his or her adherence
to this Code of Ethics. Failure to observe the terms of this Code of Ethics may
result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
Violations of this Code of Ethics may also constitute violations of law and may
result in civil and criminal penalties for the Covered Person, his or her
supervisors, or the Company.

         Reporting any possible violation of this Code of Ethics may be made
anonymously. Questions regarding the best course of action in a particular
situation should promptly be directed to Mark W. Simon, Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, and Corporate Secretary.
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 the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunrise Holdings Limited (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 Sunrise Holdings Limited.








Date: February 3, 2011


/s/ Shaojun SunShaojun Sun, Chief Financial Officer
#### GRADY v. STATE.

No. 13913.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1931.

M. M. Peagin, of Livingston, and Wm. Me-Murrey, of Coldspring, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

Violating the game law is the" offense; penalty, fixed at a fine of $25.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not before us.

In a timely manner the appellant stated that he would waive a jury. The district attorney demanded a jury, and over his objection the appellant was tried by a jury, and a verdict was rendered over his plea of not guilty. The matter is here for review by a bill of exception properly reserved. However, the matter is not an open question. The Constitution recognizes the right of one accused of a misdemeanor to waive a jury, and the statute, article 11, C. C. P., emphasizes this right. It has frequently been expressed and held that the right was one the exercise of which it was not within the power of the court to deny. Many cases are cited in Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. p. 271, § 525, including Moore v. State, 22 Tex. App. 117, 2 S. W. 634, 636. In the case mentioned, Presiding Judge White, writing the opinion of the court, said:

> “His right to such a mode of trial is a personal privilege and right, and, inasmuch as it is directly and expressly accorded him by law, we do not see how he can be deprived of the same, or be refused it when it is demanded by him, any more than he can be deprived of any other valuable right or privilege accorded by law. The right to be tried by the court alone may be as invaluable, in the opinion of defendants in some misdemeanors', and under some circumstances, as is the trial by jury in lower grades of felony.”

Because of the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
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 Ironwood Gold Corp., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Behzad Shayanfar, Chief Executive
Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer, on the date indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.



|Date:     January 23, 2012 | By: | /s/
    Behzad Shayanfar      | 
|-------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | 
|                           |     | Behzad Shayanfar              | 
|                           |     | Chief Executive Officer       | 
|                           |     | (Principal Executive Officer) | 



|Date:     January 23, 2012 | By: | /s/
    Behzad Shayanfar                                             | 
|-------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                           |     | Behzad Shayanfar                                                     | 
|                           |     | Interim Chief Financial Officer                                      | 
|                           |     | (Principal Accounting Officer & Principal
        Financial Officer) |
# L_2008258EN.01S00301.xml

| 26.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 258/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 258/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Charles M. Stivers, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky
USA Energy, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2009 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents
in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Kentucky USA Energy, Inc..





Date:  September
      21, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Charles M. StiversCharles
      M. StiversInterim
      Chief Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
Kentucky USA Energy, Inc., and will be retained by Kentucky USA Energy, Inc.,
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.