alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021278EN.01002201.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 — Claudio Necci v European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-202/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Former member of the contract staff - Social security - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) - Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) - Continued membership after retirement - Condition of having been employed for more than three years - Request to join the JSIS following a transfer of pension rights - Equating the credited years of pensionable service with years of service - Rejection of the request - Action for annulment - Act having an adverse effect - Order of the General Court declaring the action inadmissible - Order set aside)

(2021/C 278/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claudio Necci (represented initially by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2020, Necci v Commission (T-129/19, not published, EU:T:2020:131); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2020, Necci v Commission (T-129/19, not published, EU:T:2020:131);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report of AlphaRx, Inc. on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Michael M. Lee, as chief executive
officer of AlphaRx, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

|1. | This 10-K/A report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and                                                                 
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                         
|2. | The information contained in this 10-K/A report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
      operations of AlphaRx, Inc.

/s/ Michael M. LeeMichael M. Lee President & Chief
Executive Officer January 4, 2010

---
**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 Annual Report of ETELCHARGE.COM, INC., (the “ ***Company*** ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ ***Report*** ”),
      I,
      Michelle R. Sherman, Secretary and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, as applicable; and




(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




/s/
      Michelle R. Sherman


Michelle
      R. Sherman, Director, Secretary


(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)




Dated:
      May 12, 2006
##### 



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.
  Form 10-Q
      Curtis
    J. Clawson
    President and Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION AND CONSENT



I, Clarence J. Wendt, P. Geo., do hereby certify that:



1.

I reside at 5004 East Albuquerque Road, Reno, Nevada, 89511.



2.

I graduated from San Diego State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in 1967, and the University of Arizona with a Master of Science degree in Geology in 1978 and have practiced my profession continuously since that time.



3.

I am a Non-Resident Professional Geoscientist in the Province of British Columbia (N1712), a Registered Geologist in the State of Arizona (18283), and a Registered Professional Geologist with the American Institute of Professional Geologists (4966).



4.

I hold membership in the following mineral industry technical societies:



- A.I.M.E. (Fellow),
- Society of Economic Geologists (Fellow),
- AusIMM (Fellow)
- American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
- Geological Society of Nevada,
- Arizona Geological Society, and
- Northwest Mining Association.



5.

I have practiced my profession continually for 33 years.



6.

I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.



7.

I am responsible for the preparation of the following technical reports (the "Technical Reports"):



(a)

The Geology and Exploration Potential of the Juanicipio Property, Fresnillo District, Zacatecas, Mexico" dated November 19, 2002;



(b)

The Geology and Exploration Potential of the Don Fippi Property, Batopilas District, Chihuahua, Mexico dated November 19, 2002; and



(c)

The Geology and Exploration Potential of the Guigui Silver, Lead, Zinc Project, Santa Eulalia District, Chihuahua, Mexico" dated November 19, 2002.





---





8.

I have not had prior involvement with the properties that are the subject of the Technical Reports.



9.

I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the Technical Reports that is not reflected in the Technical Reports, the omission to disclose which makes any of the Technical Reports misleading.



10.

I am independent of MAG Silver Corp. (formerly Mega Capital Investments Inc.) applying all the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101.



11.

I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Reports have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.



12.

I consent to the filing of the Technical Reports with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible by the public.



13.

I consent to the identification of myself and the use of the Technical Reports and summaries of same in the Registration Statement on Form 20F of MAG Silver Corp.



Signed and Dated April 23, 2004.





"Clarence J. Wendt"



Clarence J. Wendt

Reno, Nevada
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30838 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TERRY W. CRYAR, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-20090

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1997 Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Terry W. Cryar appeals his jury conviction for receiving a child pornography videotape through the mail and theft of United States property. Cryar alleges that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was predisposed, independent of the Government’s acts, to violate the law by receiving child pornography though the mails or to prove that he intended to steal government property. Cryar further alleges that theNo. 96-30838 - 2 - district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic evidence. Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible error was committed. The convictions do not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Inocencio , 40 F.3d 716, 724 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Byrd , 31 F.3d 1329, 1334-35 (5th Cir. 1994). It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to allow the extrinsic evidence. Byrd , 31 F.3d at 1336-37. AFFIRMED.
# C_2021502EN.01000701.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — E v Finanzamt N (C-45/20) and Z v Finanzamt G (C-46/20)

(Joined Cases C-45/20 and C-46/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 167, Article 168(a), Article 250 and Article 252 - Deduction of input tax - Immovable property - An office room - Photovoltaic system - Allocation decision giving rise to a right of deduction - Communication of the allocation decision - Limitation period for exercising a right to deduct - Presumption of allocation to the private assets of the taxable person where the allocation decision is not communicated - Principle of neutrality - Principle of legal certainty - Principles of equivalence and proportionality)

(2021/C 502/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: E (C-45/20), Z (C-46/20)

Defendants: Finanzamt N (C-45/20), Finanzamt G (C-46/20)

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, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, read in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions interpreted by a national court in such a manner that where a taxable person has the right to decide to allocate an asset to his or her business assets and where, at the latest upon expiry of the statutory period for submitting the annual turnover-tax return, the competent national tax authority has not been put in a position to establish such an allocation of that asset by means of an express decision or sufficient evidence, that authority may refuse the right to deduct value added tax in respect of that asset on the ground that it has been allocated to the taxable person’s private assets, unless the specific legal arrangements under which that option may be exercised show that it does not comply with the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(3)
              - (-)products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(8)
              - alaska(43)
              - arizona(13)
              - arkansas(3)
              - california(45)
              - colorado(19)
              - connecticut(4)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(7)
              - georgia(6)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(7)
              - idaho(11)
              - illinois(3)
              - indiana(5)
              - iowa(6)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(5)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - michigan(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(6)
              - missouri(4)
              - montana(13)
              - nebraska(4)
              - nevada(14)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(9)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(6)
              - north dakota(7)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(8)
              - (-)pennsylvania(7)
              - puerto rico(3)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(3)
              - texas(16)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(25)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(11)
              - wisconsin(6)
              - wyoming(10)

## By Year

publication        January 1, 1997        Activities of the United States Geological Survey in Pennsylvania

publication        January 1, 1998        U.S. Geological Survey cooperative water-resources programs in Chester County, Pennsylvania

publication        January 1, 1996        Borehole geophysical logging for water-resources investigations in Pennsylvania

publication        March 1, 2018        Freshwater mussel salvage and relocation at the Pond Eddy Bridge, Delaware River, New York and Pennsylvania

publication        July 9, 2019        Predictive analysis using chemical-gene interaction networks consistent with observed endocrine activity and mutagenicity of U.S. streams

publication        January 1, 1983        Water-quality assessment of Francis E. Walter Reservoir, Luzerne and Carbon counties, Pennsylvania

publication        January 1, 1988        U.S. Geological Survey ground-water studies in Pennsylvania
Sean Jessie FLEMON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4975

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 16, 2019

Sean Jessie Flemon, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Roberts, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4456

THADDEUS LEE ROSS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

James C. Turk, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-7)

Submitted: October 29, 2003

Decided: December 9, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

L. Brad Braford, L. BRAD BRAFORD, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew

Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Thaddeus Lee Ross appeals the district court’s judgment revoking

his supervised release. This Court reviews a district court’s revocation

of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley,

978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). 

First, Ross argues the district court deprived him of his constitutional rights by conducting his supervised release revocation hearing

before the conclusion of related state court criminal proceedings. Second, Ross argues the district court erred by determining the grade of

his violation based on its assessment of his offense conduct, asserting

the district court should have based its conclusions on Ross’ related

state court criminal proceeding. These claims are meritless. A defendant’s violation of supervised release terms allows for revocation,

regardless of whether his violation subjects him to state court proceedings. Additionally, the grade of the defendant’s violation is based

on his conduct. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, comment. (n.1) (2002). 

Third, Ross argues the district court erred by relying on incredible

testimony to find he violated supervised release through conduct constituting malicious wounding. This claim is meritless. Witness credibility is not subject to appellate review. United States v. Beidler, 110

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). 

Fourth, Ross asserts the district court’s order denying his motion

for bond reveals the district court violated his due process rights by

adjudging him guilty before conducting his supervised release revocation hearing. This claim is meritless. The record reveals the district

court’s order denying bond was appropriate, and Ross fails to establish any violation of his due process rights. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment revoking

Ross’ supervised release. 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.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. ROSS
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                               ( print page 105643)                            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 27, 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 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1067 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-827, K2025-828.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30809 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
In the INTEREST OF J.V., J.V., and A.V., Children.

M.V., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-4283

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
extr-ex1015_657.htm



                                                                                                                                                                                                Exhibit 10.15

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.

NOTICE OF GRANT OF RESTRICTED STOCK 

(For U.S. Participants)

 

Extreme Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) has granted to the Participant an award (the “Award”) of certain shares of Stock (the “Shares”) pursuant to the Extreme Networks, Inc. 2013 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), as follows:

 


	
Participant:
	
 
	
%%FIRST_NAME%-% %%LAST_NAME%-%

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date of Grant:
	
 
	
%%OPTION_DATE%-%

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Total Number of Shares:
	
 
	
%%TOTAL_SHARES_GRANTED%-%, subject to adjustment as provided by the 

	
 
	
 
	
Restricted Stock Agreement

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Fair Market Value
	
 
	
 

	
Per Share on Date
	
 
	
 

	
Of Grant:
	
 
	
%%MARKET_VALUE%-%

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Vesting Start Date:
	
 
	
%%VEST_BASE_DATE%-%

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Vested Shares:
	
 
	
 




 

Except as provided by the Restricted Stock Units Agreement and provided that the Participant’s Service has not terminated prior to the relevant date, the number of Vested Shares shall cumulatively increase on each respective date set forth below by the number of units set forth opposite such date, as follows:

 


	
Vesting Date
	
 
	
Number of Units Vesting

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
%%VEST_DATE_PERIOD1%-%
	
 
	
%%SHARES_PERIOD1%-%

	
%%VEST_DATE_PERIOD2%-%
	
 
	
%%SHARES_PERIOD2%-%

	
%%VEST_DATE_PERIOD3%-%
	
 
	
%%SHARES_PERIOD3%-%

	
%%VEST_DATE_PERIOD4%-%
	
 
	
%%SHARES_PERIOD4%-%




By the Company’s authorized signature below and the Participant’s by electronic acceptance in a form authorized by the Company, the Company and the Participant agree that the Option is governed by this Grant Notice and by the provisions of the Option Agreement, including Appendix A, and the Plan, both of which are made a part of this document, and by the Superseding Agreement, if any.  The Participant acknowledges that copies of the Plan, the Option Agreement, including Appendix A, and the prospectus for the Plan are available on the Company’s internal web site and may be viewed and printed by the Participant for attachment to the Participant’s copy of this Grant Notice.  The Participant represents that the Participant has read and is familiar with the provisions of the Option Agreement, Appendix A, and the Plan, and hereby accepts the Option subject to all of their terms and conditions.

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(18)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(75)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(10)
              - multimedia_video-149195(9)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - (-)other_basic-37(1)

## By Location

              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - (-)wisconsin(1)

## By Year

About        June 9, 2023        River and Coastal Processes Team