alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023321EN.01001301.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Hamm v Harry Mensing

(Case C-180/22, (1) Mensing II)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 311 et seq. - Special arrangements for works of art - Margin scheme - Taxable dealers - Supply of works of art by creators or their successors in title - Intra-Community transactions - Right to deduct input tax)

(2023/C 321/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Hamm

Defendant: Harry Mensing

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 312 and 315 and the first paragraph of Article 317 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax,

must be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax paid by a taxable dealer in respect of the intra-Community acquisition of a work of art, the subsequent supply of which is subject to the margin scheme under Article 316(1) of that directive, forms part of the taxable amount of that supply.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Elkin Martinez-Cornelio, Appellant

No. 06-19-00061-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 001-

80114-19). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Elkin Martinez-Cornelio, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 4, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### COM. v. PINKNEY, D.

341 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-40-CR-0001352-2009

(Luzerne)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5669]


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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following closed meeting during the 
week of March 10, 1997.
    A closed meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 11, 1997, at 10:00 
a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Wallman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
March 11, 1997, at 10:00 a.m., will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions.
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5669 Filed 3-4-97; 12:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
# C_2021329EN.01003501.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/35

---

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)

(Case T-345/21)

(2021/C 329/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aruba SpA (Bibbiena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ARUBA NETWORKS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 198 196

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 in Case R 1473/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

| — | order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the assessment of the similarities between the conflicting signs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the assessment of the similarities between the conflicting signs.

---
Exhibit 4.7-20-F-2013






Exhibit 4.7





	
					
	1405 boul du Parc Technologique
Quebec (Quebec) G1P 4P5
Canada
	 
	 
	 
	100 Marketplace, Suite 203
25 Mountainview Blvd.
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-3452
USA








June 14, 2013


BY REGISTERED MAIL OR HAND DELIVERED
Nicholas J. Pelliccione, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance
[civic address redacted for privacy reasons]
Re:    Termination of the Change of Control Program


Dear Nick:
As provided in your employment agreement, Aeterna Zentaris Inc. (hereinafter the   "Corporation") hereby formally informs you that the Change of Control Program (hereinafter the "Program") that is currently detailed in Appendix 1 of your employment agreement is terminated.
Section 5 of Appendix 1 of your employment agreement dated May 7th, 2007 provides that the Corporation may terminate the Program at any time and for any reason by providing you with a written notice of at least 30 days prior to each anniversary date of the signature of the agreement, namely May 7.
The Corporation has decided to exercise its right to terminate the Program.
As a consequence of the termination of the Program, section 7.1 and Appendix 1 of your employment agreement shall be deemed void and inapplicable as of May 7th, 2014, although the termination of the Program does not affect the remaining provisions of your employment agreement.
Please let me know if you have any questions related to the above.


Sincerely,

David A. Dodd
President and CEO
----

|                          | State of      | Relationship     |
|-------------------------------|---------------|------------------|
|                          | Incorporation |             |
|                          |          |             |
| Sugarmill Woods, Inc.         | Florida       | Wholly owned (1) |
| Burnt Store Marina, Inc.      | Florida       | Wholly owned (1) |
| Punta Gorda Isles Sales, Inc. | Florida       | Wholly owned (1) |
| Burnt Store Utilities, Inc.   | Florida       | Wholly owned (1) |
| Gulf Coast Credit Corporation | Florida       | Wholly owned (1) |

| (1) | Included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, Chief
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, to
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 operations
          of the Company.


     Dated: March 27, 2008

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                            Chief Executive Officer






















PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G. Christianson,
Chief Financial 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, to 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 operations
          of the Company.



     Date: March 27, 2008

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Scott BURDSALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50022

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 16, 2018

L. Ashley Aull, Victor Augustus Rodgers, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph Timothy McNally, Esquire, AUSA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brian Scott Burdsall, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brian Scott Burdsall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Burdsall’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Burdsall the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Burdsall waived his right, to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Burdsall’s plea or any aspects of the sentence that fall outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm as to. those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### City of Lakeland, *et al.,*v. John C. Ray.

154 So. 324.

Division A.

Opinion Filed April 24, 1934.

*Peterson, Carver & Langston,*for *Appellants;*

*E. E. Callaway,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— Appellee, a bondholder of the City of Lakeland, brought this suit for injunction and other relief against the municipality and its officials, alleging that the city officials were wrongfully dealing with certain public funds which, under Chapter 9298, Acts of 1923, the statute under which the bonds were issued, it was contended were required to be collected and applied for complainant’s benefit. The Chancellor overruled a motion to dismiss the bill and reserved for future consideration all other questions relating to the scope and extent of relief, if any, to be granted.

Where there is any equity in a bill a motion to dismiss should be overruled on the same principle a general demurrer under the old practice was overruled. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed on the- authority of *604City of Winter Haven v. Summerlin, decided at the present term.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J„ concur in the opinion and judgment.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 17, 2021. 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, May 17, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0317. SOUTHERN PIEDMONT LAW, PC v. JIONEL E. PIERRE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2020V620
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Archstone-Smith
Operating Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the
Issuer), hereby
certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Annual Report) of the
Issuer for the year ended December 31, 2002, which accompanies this
certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m(a)) and that the information
contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

|                        |  |                                         
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: February 28, 2003 |  |                                         
|                        |  | /S/ R. SCOT SELLERS                     
|                        |  |                                         
|                        |  | R. Scot Sellers, Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We  consent to the incorporation by reference in  the  Registration  Statements
(Form  S-8  No.  33-51839 and Form S-8 No. 33-56667) pertaining to the Property
Capital Trust 1992  Employee  Stock  Option Plan and the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-56665) pertaining to  the  Property  Capital  Trust 1994 Stock
Option  Plan  for Non-Employee Trustees and the Property Capital Trust  Amended
and Restated Deferred  Stock Plan for Non-Employee Trustees of Property Capital
Trust of our report dated  August  23,  1996,  with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of Property Capital  Trust and of our report
dated February 23, 1996 except for Note 6, as to which the  date  is October 7,
1996, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Property Capital
Midwest Associates, L.P. and of our report dated February 23, 1996,  except for
Note  6  as  to  which the date is April 26, 1996 with respect to the financial
statements of PCA  Crossroads  Associates,  Ltd.  included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Property Capital Trust for the year ended July 31, 1996.




                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Boston, Massachusetts
November 4, 1996
Exhibit 4.10

 

EXISTING RCF ACCESSION LETTER

 

To: ING Bank N.V., London Branch as Facility Agent

 

From:  3E (Cyprus) Limited and Coca-Cola HBC AG.

 

Dated:  9 October 2013

 

Dear Sirs

 

COCA-COLA HBC AG - €500,000,000 SYNDICATED MULTI-CURRENCY
 REVOLVING CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT 
 DATED 12 MAY 2011 (AS AMENDED, RESTATED AND SUPPLEMENTED FROM
 TIME TO TIME) (THE “FACILITY AGREEMENT”)

 

1.                                We refer to the Facility Agreement.  This is an Accession Letter.  Terms defined in the Facility Agreement have the same meaning in this Accession Letter unless given a different meaning in this Accession Letter.

 

2.                                3E (Cyprus) Limited agrees to become an Additional Guarantor and to be bound by the terms of the Facility Agreement as an Additional Guarantor pursuant to Clause 24.4 (Additional Guarantors) of the Facility Agreement.  3E (Cyprus) Limited is a company duly incorporated under the laws of Cyprus.

 

3.                                3E (Cyprus) Limited’s administrative details are as follows:

 

Address:                                           9 Fragoklissias Street,  Maroussi, Athens, P.C. 151 25, Greece

 

Fax :                                                              0030 210 618 3275

 

Attention:                                   Director of Treasury

 

4.                                This Accession Letter and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by English law.

 

5.                                The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this deed (including a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this Accession Letter) (a “Dispute”). The parties to this Accession Letter agree that the courts of England are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle Disputes and accordingly no Party will argue to the contrary. This paragraph 5 is for the benefit of the Finance Parties only.  As a result, no Finance Party shall be prevented from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute in any other courts with jurisdiction.  To the extent allowed by law, the Finance Parties may take concurrent proceedings in any number of jurisdictions.

 

6.                                This Accession Letter is entered into by deed.

 











 

 

	
EXECUTED AND DELIVERED AS A   DEED BY COCA-COLA HBC AG
    	
 
    	
EXECUTED AND DELIVERED AS A   DEED BY 3E (CYPRUS) LIMITED
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By: 
    	
/s/ J. Gustavsson
    	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ R. Petri
    
	
Name: 
    	
J. Gustavsson
    	
 
    	
Name: 
    	
R. Petri
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date: 9   October 2013
    	
Date: 9 October 2013
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By: 
    	
/s/ M. Imellos
    	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ C. Christodoulakis
    
	
Name: 
    	
M. Imellos
    	
 
    	
Name: 
    	
C. Christodoulakis
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date: 9 October 2013
    	
Date: 9 October 2013
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo TAFOYA, also known as Rudolfo Tapioa, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10522 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael Arthur Leh-mann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

*402PER CURIAM: *

Rodolfo Tafoya appeals the 21-month within-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). However, he correctly concedes that whether a prior conviction .must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury before a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) can be applied is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, summary af-firmance is appropriate. *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.