alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013313EN.01001301.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek

(Case C-454/13)

2013/C 313/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgacom SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’) (1) be interpreted as precluding the introduction, for budgetary purposes, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile communications infrastructures, installed on public or private property, used to carry on activities provided for in the general authorisation?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
San Joaquin, California

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

**Start Date/Time:**

Saturday, March 1, 2025 8:00 AM

**Description:**

During the month of March, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California, will transition to the Warehouse Management System. Customers with questions or concerns about their material are encouraged to reach out via the contact information found on the San Joaquin, California, location page.

Enrolled Users:

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
# C_2014175EN.01005204.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/52

---

Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014 — Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source v Commission

(Case T-147/13) (1)

1

2014/C 175/74

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27. 4. 2013.

1

---
No. 10-5890.

#### Thomas Moore, Petitioner v. Franklin J. Tennis, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 986,

178 L. Ed. 2d 815,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 592.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 940, 131 S. Ct. 356, 178 L. Ed. 2d 230, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7420.
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





18
      U.S.C.
      1350 Certification of Bruce C. Dale


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


of


Duckwall-ALCO
      Stores, Inc.





I,
      Bruce
      C. Dale, President and Chief Executive Officer of Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.,
      hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
            The
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended January 28,
                2007,
                which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements
                of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
                as
                amended; and


(b)
            The
                information contained the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
                year ended January 29, 2006, which accompanies this certification,
                fairly
                presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                of
                operation of Duckwall-ALCO Stores,
                Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and will be retained by Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Dated:
      April 23, 2007


By: */s/
      Bruce C. Dale*


Bruce
      C. Dale


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2725 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2725

  To provide duty-free treatment for the sale of used yachts, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2019

   Mr. Mast introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide duty-free treatment for the sale of used yachts, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Maritime Industries Relief Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR THE SALE OF USED YACHTS.

    Section 484b of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484b) is amended 
to read as follows:

``SEC. 484B. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR THE SALE OF USED YACHTS.

    ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
dutiable vessel meeting the definition of a used yacht under subsection 
(b) may be offered for sale or sold in the customs territory of the 
United States without payment of duty.
    ``(b) Used Yacht Defined.--For purposes of duty-free treatment 
under subsection (a), the term `used yacht' means a vessel classifiable 
under heading 8903 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was--
            ``(1) sold at least once before entering the customs 
        territory of the United States; and
            ``(2) used, by the person bringing such vessel into the 
        customs territory of the United States, primarily for 
        recreation or pleasure.
    ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
provisions of this section.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall apply with respect to any 
used yachts imported into the United States after the date that is 15 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2014303EN.01000201.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/2

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Zoo Sport Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-455/12: Zoo Sport Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and intervener before the General Court K-2 Corp.

(Case C-675/13 P)

2014/C 303/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Zoo Sport Ltd (represented by: I. Rungg, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and K-2 Corp.

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 15 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Philip A. Garcia, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company for the year ended December 31, 2004;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a.
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:  a.
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: February 24, 2005 /s/ Philip A. GarciaPhilip A. Garcia, Executive Vice President & CFO
 93
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 12:02 PM

To: Cohen, Daniel; Cymbalsky, John

Cc: Barhydt, Laura; Armstrong, Ashley

Subject: Request for information

Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Cymbalsky,

Engineered Air is looking into third party testing. ETL, AHRI and CSA all have energy efficiency 

verification programs. These programs test to AHRI 340/360, or whatever the applicable test standard 

is, with ETL doing the testing. These programs test a base model. As long as the base model 

testing meets the EER's in the standard then the equipment can bear an energy verification label. This 

would apply to basically any DX unit. The energy verification label that these agencies use seems to be 

the only way to prove a device meets the federal standard. The DOE regulations are not more stringent 

than ASHRAE 90.1 they simply apply to a broader scope of equipment applications.

The standard references AHRI standards 210/240, 340/360, 310/380 and ISO 13256-1 (1998) as the 

applicable test standards depending on the type of equipment being referenced. This covers air cooled, 

water cooled, heat pumps and evaporatively cooled air conditioners. This would cover most outdoor 

equipment. Based on our previous discussions there are no exemptions to the standard. Also vertical 

packaged air conditioners are covered under the standard even though there is no test standard 

referenced.

Items not covered by the standard would be things like commercial dehumidifiers which are not listed and 

are covered under AHRI 910 test standard and units covered by AHRI test standards 325 and 365 since 

these test standards do not apply to unitary equipment. We need to verify that this is correct in order to 

determine a scope for the testing agency. I just need to know that this approach is basically correct.

The testing agencies are convinced that using their test model we can label most DX cooling units to 

meet the EER's in the standard. ASHRAE 90.1 says that wherever the equipment is used to heat, 

ventilate or air-condition then the specified EER's need to be met (Scope 2.2 b). The issues we need 

clarification on are: 1) units where centrifugal condenser fans are required the specified EER's cannot be 

met due to the motor horsepower required on the condenser fan;2) in applications where the DX unit 

functions without ANY regard to the comfort of the occupants the EER's may not be met. and 3) since 

DOE regulations are broader than ASHRAE 90.1 that the DOE intends to enforce the EPCA as 

amended. 

Any guidance you can give would be appreciated,

Ric Rambacher

President

Engineered Air
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.2    
    


 
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS    
    


We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form F-8 of our report dated March 21, 2004 (except as to notes 1(1)
and 7, which are dated as of November 29, 2004), relating to the amended consolidated balance sheets of Stuart Energy Systems Corporation as at March 31, 2004 and 2003, the
amended consolidated statements of operations, deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 2004 and the consolidated statements of
operations, deficit and cash flows for the year ended March 31, 2002. 


/s/
KPMG LLP 


KPMG



November 30,
2004

Toronto, Ontario 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,153,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,558,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   480,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,537,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,797,000
<PP&E>                                      26,794,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,195,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,774,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,218,000
<BONDS>                                     11,901,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       151,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,831,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,774,000
<SALES>                                     71,987,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,987,000
<CGS>                                       38,354,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,354,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,150,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,029,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,818,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,256,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,562,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 240,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,802,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 277 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 277

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To adjust collateral requirements under the Small Business Act for 
                disaster loans, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Sufficient Capital for 
Everyone in Natural Disaster areas Act of 2019'' or the ``ASCEND Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISASTER LOANS UNDER THE SMALL 
              BUSINESS ACT.

    (a) Amendment to the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015.--Section 2102 
of the RISE After Disaster Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-88) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c); and
            (2) by striking ``(a) In General.--''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as though enacted as part of the RISE After Disaster Act of 
2015.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 277

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To adjust collateral requirements under the Small Business Act for 
                disaster loans, and for other purposes.
```
Pre-decisional. For internal use only. 1	

Tips	From	Former	Smokers	Tips	2018/Vignettes	

Christine/“Happy	Memories”	1:20		

The	vignette opens	on	the	title	“Happy	Memories.	A	Former	Smoker’s	Story,”	and	cuts	to	a	shot	of	Christine	

in	her	home,	speaking	to	the	camera.			

CHRISTINE:	My	doctor	let	me	pick	the	date	to	have	the	surgery.	I	chose—

We	see	an	image	of	Christine	in	a	hospital	bed.			

CHRISTINE:	two	days	after	my	son’s	birthday.	And	I	decided	that—	

The	camera	cuts	back	to	Christine	speaking	to	the	camera.			

CHRISTINE:	my	children	are	going	to	have	memories.	Happy	memories.	

We	see	an	image	of	Christine	with	her	son,	and	a	picture	of	her	daughter.		

We	went	out	and	did	all	kinds	of	things.	They	didn’t	see	me	sitting	around	crying—	

The	camera	cuts	back	to	Christine	speaking	to	the	camera.			

CHRISTINE:	feeling	sorry	for	myself.	That	wasn’t	in	my	DNA.	Not	at	all.	We	had	a	huge	party.	I	mean,	it	went	

from	like	from	noon-time	to	like	11	o’clock.	Never	ending.	People	in	and	out,	all	day	long.	I	wanted	them	

surrounded	by	people	that	cared	about	them.	And	that	was	why	I	wanted	to	have	that	party.	So	those	

people	knew	how	serious	it	was.	And	that	my	kids	would	need	help	if	I	wasn’t	there.	I	wrote	letters	to	my	

children.	Page	after	page.	Hand	written	letters	of	things	they	might	need	in	life.	I	still	have	them.	I	put	them	

away.	And	um,	it	was	a	hard,	hard	time.	

ART	CARD:	CDC	LOGO		

BROUGHT	TO	YOU	BY	THE	U.S.	DEPARTMENT	OF	HEALTH	AND	HUMAN	SERVICES.
| Exhibit 32 |
|------------|

 

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert C. Stempel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sanjeev Kumar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the *Sarbanes-Oxley* Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that based on 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 operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Robert C. Stempel                                    

Robert C. Stempel

Chief Executive Officer

September 12, 2006

 

 

/s/ Sanjeev Kumar                                

Sanjeev Kumar

Chief Financial Officer

September 12, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY ANN DUREAU ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
MARK HOWARD ALLENBAUGH ,

Defendant

- Appellee

. No. 16

- 55715
D.C. No. 15

- cv - 01494

- BRO

- SP
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Beverly Reid O’Connell , District Judge , Presiding Argued and Submitted December 8 , 2017

Pasadena , California
Before: KELLY, ** CALLAHAN, and BEA , Circuit Judges Mary Dureau appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a default judgment on a professional negligence claim against her former attorney Mark Howard Allenbaugh. We review the denial of a motion for a default judgment for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by desi gnation. 

# FILED

JAN 4 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

abuse of discretion and may affirm on any ground finding support in the record. Eitel
v. McCool , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986 ). To state a claim for attorney negligence in California , a plaintiff must plead the existence of proximate causation: i.e. , that but

- for the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in a given action. Viner v. Sweet , 30 Cal. 4th 1232, 1241 (2003)

. In her complaint, Dureau’s allegations of proximate causation wer e wholly conclusory. Dureau therefore failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), necessitating the denial of her motion for a default judgment. DirecTV , Inc. v. Huynh , 503 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007) ; Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp. , 123 F.3d 1353, 1370 n.41 (11 th Cir. 1997)

. The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it determined that
Dureau’s substantive claims lack merit. Eitel v. McCool , 782 F.2d at 1471

– 72

. Dureau failed on appeal to develop her argument seeking a jury trial and has
therefore waived it. Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)

. AFFIRMED
.