alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(10)
              - products_publications(55)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(20)
              - multimedia_image-141771(20)
              - (-)multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(5)
              - alaska(9)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(36)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(60)
              - colorado(4)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(2)
              - connecticut(4)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(7)
              - florida(15)
              - georgia(3)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(14)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(11)
              - maine(7)
              - maryland(15)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(9)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(16)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(5)
              - (-)ohio(2)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(5)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(7)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(10)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(17)
              - u.s. virgin islands(3)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(14)
              - west virginia(3)
              - wisconsin(10)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        August 31, 2012        The Greatest Natural Disaster in Ohio History: The Flood of 1913

Featured Films and Shorts        April 26, 2021        EarthShots — Satellite Images of Environmental Change
# C_2022109EN.01000602.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Zipvit Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-156/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Supply of postal services mistakenly exempted - VAT deemed to be included in the commercial price of the supply for the purpose of exercising the right of deduction - Not included - Concept of VAT ‘due or paid’)

(2022/C 109/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zipvit Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax (VAT) cannot be regarded as being due or paid, within the meaning of that provision, and is therefore not deductible by the taxable person, in the case where, first, that person and its supplier have mistakenly assumed, on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of EU law by the national authorities, that the supplies at issue were exempt from VAT and that, consequently, the invoices issued did not refer to it, in a situation where the contract between those two persons provides that, if that tax were due, the recipient of the supply should bear the cost of it, and, second, no step to recover the VAT was taken in good time, with the result that any action by the supplier and the tax and customs administration to recover the unpaid VAT is time-barred.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
Gail Anne NICHOLS, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2656

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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  Annual  Report  of  Ocean  Resources,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Graham
Jessop, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Graham Jessop
                               --------------------------------------
                               Graham Jessop
                               Chief Executive Officer
                               October 8, 2002
M.V., Father of K.V., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2873

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 18, 2018

Elliott R. Ambrose, of The Law Office of Elliott R. Ambrose, Brooksville, for Appellant.

Kelley Schaeffer, of Department of Children & Families, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

Thomasina Moore, Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb and Joanna Summers Brunell, of Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Jose J. GARCIA, DOC #D46113, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018.

Jose J. Garcia, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# C_2019383EN.01007701.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/77

---

Action brought on 26 September 2019 – Linde Material Handling v EUIPO – Verti Aseguradora (VertiLight)

(Case T-644/19)

(2019/C 383/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Linde Material Handling GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark VertiLight – Application for registration No 16 161 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2019 in Case R 1849/2018-5

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the obligation to state reasons, under Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the obligation to state reasons, under Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the right to be heard, under Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to be heard, under Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donovan Jones, Chief Executive Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the amended Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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/ Donovan
JonesDonovan Jones President and Chief Executive Officer

December 9, 2010

I, David Karp, Chief Financial Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the amended Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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/ David KarpDavid KarpChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

December 9, 2010

---
Rashard A. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2735

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.2





Chief
      Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18U.S.C.,SECTION
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Kenneth Faith, the undersigned Chief Financial
      Officer of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (the “Company”), herby certify that, to the
      best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
      the
      period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:
                May 20, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Kenneth
                FaithCFO
Order entered August 2 5 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00615
- CV NOAM NIV, Appellant
V. MEYER & COLEGROVE, P LLC, MILTON W. COLEG ROVE, JR. AND CONTEMPORARY SOLUTIO NS
- USA D/B/A TEXAS PION EER TITLE AGENCY, A ppellee s On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 04528
- 2011 

### O RDER
B e fore the Court is appellees’ August 12, 2015 motion to proceed without court reporter’s record and affirm trial court’s judgment

. In the motion, appellees correctly note the reporter’s record is overdue and appellant has failed to comply with the Court’s June 18, 2015 directive to file written verification appellant has requested preparation of the reporter’s record and either has paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee or is allowed to proceed without prepayment of costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c). Because appellant was cautioned that failure to comply with the June 18th directive could result in the appeal being sub mitted without the reporter’s record and appellant has filed no response to appellees’ August 12th motion, we GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDERthe appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See id. As the clerk’s record has been filed, appell ant shall file his brief no later than September 23, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 106628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30998]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 30, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1115 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-894, K2025-895.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-30998 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Gregory D. TRUETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1419

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS      I, Gary Freeman, being the Chief Financial Officer, certify that:      1. I have reviewed the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of Silvergraph International, Inc.;      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;      4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) not applicable  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in the report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s firstquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and      5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     August 18, 2006 /s/ Gary Freeman   Date Gary Freeman, Chief Financial Officer
Tomas S. BURGESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1409

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 31, 2018

Tomas S. Burgess, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Carbajal v. State*, 75 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2011) ; *State v. King*, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Brown v. State*, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; *Desmond v. State*, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ; *Budd v. State*, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ; *McMillan v. State*, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; *Hart v. State*, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OR EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES MAXCOM TELECOMUNICACIONES, S.A. DE C.V.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH MEXICAN
GAAP (Amounts expressed in Millions of Mexican Pesos
with Purchasing Power as of December 31, 2004) 2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Income (Loss) Before Income Tax
    
    
    (100,969
    )
    
    
    (372,660
    )
    
    
    (792,913
    )
    
    
    (754,183
    )
    
    
    (720,583
    )Determination of the RatioFixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    27,982
    
    
    
    23,435
    
    
    
    227,104
    
    
    
    493,597
    
    
    
    482,754Interest capitalized during period
    
    
        
    
    
    
    83
    
    
    
    874
    
    
    
    6,523Rental expense
    
    
      
  
    
    
    10,289
    
    
    
    16,160
    
    
    
    14,360
    
    
    
    8,584Debt issuance costs
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    99,238Total fixed charges:
    
    
    27,982
    
    
    
    33,807
    
    
    
    244,138
    
    
    
    514,479
    
    
    
    590,576Earnings:Income (loss) from continuing operations
    
    
    (100,969
    )
    
    
    (372,660
    )
    
    
    (792,913
    )
    
    
    (754,183
    )
    
    
    (720,583
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    27,982
    
    
    
    33,807
    
    
    
    244,138
    
    
    
    514,479
    
    
    
    590,576Less: interest capitalized during period
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (83
    )
    
    
    (874
    )
    
    
    (6,523
    )Debt issuance costs
    
  
    (16,533
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (99,238
    )Total earnings:
    
    
    (89,520
    )
    
    
    (338,936
    )
    
    
    (549,649
    )
    
    
    (246,226
    )
    
    
    (229,245
    )Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (3.20
    )
    
    
    (10.03
    )
    
    
    (2.25
    )
    
    
    (0.48
    )
    
    
    (0.39
    )Insufficiency
    
    
    117,502
    
    
    
    372,743
    
    
    
    793,787
    
    
    
    760,705
    
    
    
    819,820
INTERVIDEO, INC.



Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors

InterVideo, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-107441)
on Form S-8 of InterVideo, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated February 11, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of
the Company.



Our report dated February 11, 2004 contains an explanatory
paragraph that refers to the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets effective January 1, 2002.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    KPMG LLP                         
|Mountain View, California March 26,
2004