alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021310EN.01000701.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — K (C-58/20), DBKAG (C-59/20) v Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Linz

(Joined Cases C-58/20 and C-59/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1) - Exemptions - Management of special investment funds - Outsourcing - Services provided by a third party)

(2021/C 310/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K (C-58/20), DBKAG (C-59/20)

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich, formerly Finanzamt Linz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(g) 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 provision of services by third parties to management companies of special investment funds, such as tax-related responsibilities consisting in ensuring that the income received from the fund by the unit-holders is taxed in accordance with national law and the grant of a right to use software which is used exclusively to carry out calculations which are essential for risk management and performance measurement, fall within the scope of the exemption provided for in that provision if they are intrinsically connected to the management of such funds and if they are provided exclusively for the purpose of managing such funds, even if those services are not outsourced in their entirety.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Gina PAETH, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR the C-BASS MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, Series 2006-RP2; Elizabeth Janet Paeth; Unknown Tenant #1 n/k/a Kathryn Wilbourne; and Unknown Tenant #2 n/k/a Alexander Wilbourne, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4659

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 7, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# 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® 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® Contract 1109 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-888 K2025-889.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30992 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Juan Francisco VEGA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert W. GERMAINE, Clerk, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3904

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 20, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA2001) ("It is well-settled that in a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the trial court's attention by having it noticed for hearing.").

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of China Yingxia
International, Inc. f/k/a Agronix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yingxia Jiao, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   Such Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
          period ended December 31, 2004, 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 such Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
          on 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of French Peak Resources, Inc.



Dated: August 9, 2006

CHINA YINGXIA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

By:         /s/ Yingxia Jiao
            ----------------------------
            YINGXIA JIAO
            Chief Executive Officer and
            Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.



Dated: November 6, 2003



/s/    DONALD H. HUNTERDonald H. Hunter Chief Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



52
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Garuda Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Robin Relph, Chief Executive
Officer and 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:

| | 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.

By: /s/C. Robin
Relph

C. Robin Relph,Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2006

---
# C_2022011EN.01000801.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland — Ireland) — MG v Dublin City Council

(Case C-214/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Retained firefighter - Stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Pursuit, during the period of stand-by time, of a self-employed professional activity - Constraints arising from the stand-by system)

(2022/C 11/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Labour Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MG

Defendant: Dublin City Council

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system served by a retained firefighter, during which that worker, with the permission of his or her employer, carries out a professional activity on his or her own account but must, in the event of an emergency call, reach his or her assigned fire station within 10 minutes, does not constitute ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision if it follows from an overall assessment of all the facts of the case, in particular from the scope and terms of that ability to carry out another professional activity and from the absence of obligation to participate in the entirety of the interventions effected from that fire station, that the constraints imposed on the said worker during that period are not of such a nature as to constrain objectively and very significantly the ability that he or she has freely to manage, during the said period, the time during which his or her services as a retained firefighter are not required.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 registration No.'s 333-67086 and 333-99237) pertaining to RadView
Software Ltd. Key Employee Share Incentive Plan (1996) and RadView Software
Ltd. United States Share Incentive Plan (2000) of our report dated
January 16, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
RadView Software Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ LUBOSHITZ KASIERER

Luboshitz Kasierer
An affiliate member of Ernst & Young International

Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 25, 2003
# C_2022198EN.01000302.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence

(Case C-117/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Postal services - Tariff system adopted by a universal service provider - Fine imposed by a national postal regulator - Fine imposed by a national competition authority - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Non bis in idem principle - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the non bis in idem principle - Duplication of proceedings and penalties - Conditions - Pursuit of an objective of general interest - Proportionality)

(2022/C 198/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence

Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person from being fined for an infringement of EU competition law where, on the same facts, that person has already been the subject of a final decision following proceedings relating to an infringement of sectoral rules concerning the liberalisation of the relevant market, provided that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the two competent authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner within a proximate timeframe; and that the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 103891-103892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30130]

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

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 19, 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 11, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract

[[Page 103892]]

1014 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-764, K2025-763.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-30130 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(13)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149197(2)

## By Location

              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(2)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - (-)montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - north dakota(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(2)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

How to's and trainings        June 11, 2020        Land Treatment Exploration Tool — Step 5: Select Search Parameters

How to's and trainings        June 11, 2020        Land Treatment Exploration Tool — Step 6: Compare the LTDL Treatments
# C_2022024EN.01000701.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Promexor Trade SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

(Case C-358/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Revocation of the VAT identification of a taxable person - Refusal of the right of deduction - Formal requirements)

(2022/C 24/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Promexor Trade SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168, Article 213(1), Article 214(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010 and the principle of value added tax (VAT) neutrality, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding, where the identification of a taxable person for VAT purposes has been revoked because no taxable transactions have been indicated in the VAT returns filed for six consecutive months but where that taxable person continues his or her activities notwithstanding that revocation, national legislation under which the competent tax authority may require that taxable person to pay the VAT due on his or her taxed transactions, provided that he or she can re-register for VAT purposes and deduct the input VAT paid. The fact that the director of the taxable person is a partner in another company which is the subject to insolvency proceedings cannot, in itself, be put forward to systematically refuse the re-registration of that taxable person for VAT purposes.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---
# C_2023015EN.01003203.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — proceedings brought by Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije, intervening parties: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, Vlada Republike Slovenije

(Case C-486/20) (1)

(2023/C 15/37)

Language of the case: Slovenian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4412

In Re: ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-314) Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: December 18, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Gerard Lewis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: In this petition for a writ of mandamus, Andre G. Lewis seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. An inmate may proceed in any federal court with partial prepayment of fees in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (2000). However, the court may dismiss the action if it concludes that “the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . [or] fails to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). After reviewing the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the mandamus petition, we find Lewis’s petition is frivolous, malicious and fails to state a claim. Accordingly, we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. On August 19, 2003, by order to show cause, Lewis was ordered to demonstrate why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous actions in this Court and enjoined from filing further actions. Lewis filed a response claiming his mandamus petition was not frivolous and that because he is a pro se litigant, he should be permitted to proceed without sanctions. After reviewing the petition and Lewis’s history of filing frivolous actions in this Court, we disagree. The mandamus petitions and numerous motions Lewis has filed are consistently frivolous. In lieu of particularized fees and costs and in light of Lewis’s utter disregard for the limited resources of this court, we order Lewis to pay sanctions in the amount of $500 payable to the clerk of the3 court, as we have done in similar cases. See In re Vincent , 105 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1997). In addition, we enjoin Lewis from filing any further appeals or other actions in this court until (1) the sanctions are fully paid, and (2) the district court or this court determines the action is not frivolous. We deny Lewis’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we dismiss the mandamus petition. We sanction Lewis and enjoin him from filing future actions in this court in accordance with this opinion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED