alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Anthony VANDERPLOEG, Debtor. Jacques Powers, Appellant, v. Anthony Vanderploeg, Appellee.

No. 15-55939

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Jacques Powers, Pro Se

Anthony Vanderploeg, 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 **

Jacques Powers appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bank*631ruptcy court’s order denying Powers’s motion to reopen his dismissed adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the decision of the bankruptcy court without deference to the district court’s decision. *In*re *AFI Holding, Inc.,*525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Powers’s motion to vacate its order dismissing the adversary proceeding because Powers failed to identify any grounds for relief. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); *Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,*362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).

Because Powers’s notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court was not timely as to the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the adversary proceeding, we do not consider Powers’s challenges to that order. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion tolls appeal period only if filed within 14 days of judgment, order or decree); *Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick),*13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 are jurisdictional); *see also Delaney v. Alexander (In re Delaney ),*29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1994) (parties have an affirmative duty to monitor the docket). We also do not consider Powers’s arguments related to the merits of his underlying claims.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Nirith Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2021391EN.01002601.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/26

---

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)

(Case T-498/21)

(2021/C 391/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lotion LLC (Woodland Hills, California, United States) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BLACK IRISH — Application for registration No 18 189 156

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2021 in Case R 199/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the contested application for the contested goods and those goods currently claimed in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the contested application for the contested goods and those goods currently claimed in the application;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant including in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant including in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of general principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of general principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 1 OF FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND
YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,792
<SECURITIES>                                    13,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,320
<PP&E>                                          18,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,697
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,541
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,588
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    421
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       421
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

In the Matter of: TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD

FAA Order No. 2015-7

FDMS No. FAA-2014-11171

Served: October 26, 2015

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL2

By notice served on October 16, 2015, Trans North Aviation, Ltd. (“Trans North”),

withdrew its appeal of the written initial decision served by Administrative Law Judge 

Richard C. Goodwin on August 26, 2015.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Trans North’s appeal is dismissed. 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR

Federal Aviation Administration

Original signed by Vicki S. Leemon

VICKI S. LEEMON3

Manager, Adjudication Branch

 

1 Generally, materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket are also available for viewing at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(1). 

2 The Administrator’s civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the rules of 

practice, and other information, are available on the Internet at the following address: 

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/AGC400/Civil _Penalty/. See

14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(2). In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation 

Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw (FTRANFAA database). For additional information, see the Web site.

3

Issued under authority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Litigation by memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.202 

(see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation to the 

Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                             THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
                         SEPTEMBER 30, SEPTEMBER 30, SEPTEMBER 30, SEPTEMBER 30,
                             1996          1997          1996          1997
                         ------------- ------------- ------------  -------------
Net Income                $   249,234   $ 5,475,267   $ 3,961,616   $18,505,077
Weighted average number 
  of common shares
  outstanding (A)          18,400,000    23,515,569    18,400,000    20,123,928
                          -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
Per share amount (B)      $      0.01   $      0.23   $      0.22   $      0.92
                          ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
Pro forma net income      $   153,234   $ 5,475,267   $ 2,491,616   $14,525,077
Weighted average number
  of common shares
  outstanding (A)          18,400,000    23,515,569    18,400,000    20,123,928
                          -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
Pro forma per share
  amount (B)              $      0.01   $      0.23   $      0.14   $      0.72
                          ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

(A) For the three months and nine months ended September 30, 1997, the weighted
    average shares outstanding includes the dilutive effects of stock options
    determined using the treasury stock method.

(B) The difference in the weighted average shares outstanding--primary, and the
    weighted average shares outstanding--fully dilutive is immaterial.
    Accordingly, primary and fully diluted earnings per share are the same.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from Synaptix Systems Corporation  December 31, 1997 financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                             0000817125
<NAME>                            Synaptix Systems Corporation

       

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                    2,583
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          13,628
<PP&E>                                                    108,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                            (14,588)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            107,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     811,352
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  46,781
<OTHER-SE>                                                (751,188)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              107,888
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          746,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (746,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (746,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (746,377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.05)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022284EN.01001302.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 18 February 2022 — Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie v W. Sp. z o.o.

(Case C-114/22)

(2022/C 284/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie

Respondent: W. Sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) (1) and the principles of neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 88(3a)(4)(c) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the Tax on Goods and Services, Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which deprives a taxable person of the right to deduct VAT on the acquisition of a right (asset) deemed to have been made under false pretences within the meaning of the provisions of national civil law, irrespective of whether the result sought was a tax advantage, the granting of which would be contrary to one or more of the objectives of the directive and whether it constituted the principal aim of the contractual approach adopted?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 13,
2015 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2015-1 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes
by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate
Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  |  |  | Dated: March 15, 2018
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |  |  |
# C_2023045EN.01000701.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2022 — Gemeente Dinkelland v Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle

(Case C-674/22)

(2023/C 45/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeente Dinkelland

Defendant: Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the legal rule that default interest must be reimbursed because there is a right to a refund of taxes levied in breach of EU law be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person has been granted a refund of turnover tax, default interest must be reimbursed to that taxable person in a situation where:






  a. | the refund is the result of administrative errors on the part of the taxable person, as described in this ruling, and for which the inspector cannot be blamed in any way; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must the legal rule that default interest must be reimbursed because there is a right to a refund of taxes levied in breach of EU law be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person has been granted a refund of turnover tax, default interest must be reimbursed to that taxable person in a situation where:

a.

the refund is the result of administrative errors on the part of the taxable person, as described in this ruling, and for which the inspector cannot be blamed in any way;

| b. | the refund is the result of a recalculation of the allocation key for the deduction of turnover tax on general costs, under the circumstances described in this ruling? |
| --- | --- |

b.

the refund is the result of a recalculation of the allocation key for the deduction of turnover tax on general costs, under the circumstances described in this ruling?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, from what day is there a right to the reimbursement of default interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, from what day is there a right to the reimbursement of default interest?

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5854]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice (97-027)]


NASA Advisory Council, Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications Advisory Committee, Microgravity Science and Applications 
Advisory Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

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

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 62 FR 7072, Notice 
Number 97-014, February 14, 1997.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATES OF MEETING: March 5, 1997, 10:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. Meeting has been canceled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Dr. Bradley M. Carpenter, Code UG, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 
202-358-0813.

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
Leslie M. Nolan,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-5854 Filed 3-5-97; 1:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
No. 11-9281.

#### In re Doyle.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*[566 U. S. 986] denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, Howard L. Flanders, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
All American Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

         (1)      that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American
                  Semiconductor, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on June 30,
                  2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
                  date hereof at File No. 0-16207 (the "Report") fully complies
                  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
                  applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.




Date:  August 14, 2006                      /s/ HOWARD L. FLANDERS
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Howard L. Flanders
                                            Executive Vice President and Chief
                                            Financial Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8726 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, as the ‘‘PFC 

James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2020 

Ms. BARRAGA ́N (for herself, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. THOMPSON of California, 

Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. SWALWELL of California, 

Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Mr. LAMALFA, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. LEE of 

California, Mr. COX of California, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. 

MCCLINTOCK, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. COOK, Mr. SHERMAN, Mrs. 

TORRES of California, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Ms. BASS, Mr. COSTA, 

Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. BERA, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. PETERS, 

Mr. CORREA, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. WATERS, Mr. AGUILAR, Mr. 

GOMEZ, Mr. HARDER of California, Mr. CISNEROS, Ms. BROWNLEY of 

California, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. LEVIN of California, Mr. ROUDA, Ms. PORTER, and Mr. RUIZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, 

California, as the ‘‘PFC James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8726 IH

1 SECTION 1. PFC JAMES ANDERSON, JR., POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue 

5 in Compton, California, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘PFC James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC James Anderson, 

11 Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS