alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020433EN.01002002.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 September 2020 — C v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-435/20)

(2020/C 433/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in a different EU Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was conducted in a different EU Member State?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU also if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in an EU Member State, but in Switzerland? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is national legislation under which an application for international protection can be rejected as an inadmissible subsequent application compatible with Article 33(2)(d) and Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU also if the unsuccessful initial asylum procedure was not conducted in an EU Member State, but in Switzerland?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: Is national legislation under which an application for asylum is inadmissible in the event of a subsequent application and which makes no distinction between refugee status and subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33(2)[(d)] of Directive 2013/32/EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: Is national legislation under which an application for asylum is inadmissible in the event of a subsequent application and which makes no distinction between refugee status and subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33(2)[(d)] of Directive 2013/32/EU?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00721-CR

Moises Guzman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-12-300225, THE HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Moises Guzman of two counts of indecency with a child

by sexual contact, see Tex. Penal Code § 22.11(a)(1), and the trial court assessed his punishment at

confinement for ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each count and ordered

the sentences to be served concurrently, see id. § 12.33.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel provided appellant a copy of the brief and advised appellant of

his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner,

300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error. 

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious

grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial

court’s judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Affirmed

Filed: July 22, 2014

Do Not Publish

2
Exhibit 32

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 Capital Growth Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick C. Shutt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Jim McDevitt, the Chief
Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to l8 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.

Dated: August 19, 2009



By:

/s/ Patrick C. ShuttName:

Patrick C. ShuttTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Jim McDevittName:

Jim McDevittTitle:

Chief Financial and Accounting Officer


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

The foregoing certification is
being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



46
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Charles T. Phillips., Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Supreme
Holdings, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarter 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
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 annual report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  (c) presented in this Quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls;

         6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


By:/s/ Charles T. Phillips
   -------------------------
       Charles T. Phillips
       Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 9, 2003
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q accompanying this statement.



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Inc. (XM), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of XM for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 filed on the date hereof 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
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of XM.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Hugh PaneroHugh PaneroPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2003/s/ Joseph EuteneuerJoseph EuteneuerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to XM and will be retained by XM and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. v. SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. and Active Solutions, LLC

NO. 2018-02088

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.
EX PARTE Richard HENLEY

CR-16-0583

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 6, 2017 Reh. denied September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Anthony TYSON v. STATE

CR-14-0945

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Powers of Attorney



I hereby appoint Therese Johnson, CMA, Corporate Secretary of Carmina Technologies Inc. my Attorney-in-fact to sign the Form 10-KSB dated May 26, 2004, of Carmina Technologies Inc. on my behalf as Director and Director of Technology upon confirmation by me by telephone, telefax or e-mail that I have received and approved the draft Form 10-KSB.







May 26, 2004

/s/ John M. Alston

Date

John M. Alston



May 26, 2004

/s/ Tom W. Whittingham

Date

Thomas W. Whittingham



May 26, 2004

/s/ Bernard Benning

Date

Bernard Benning



May 26, 2004

/s/ Richard Day

Date

Richard M. Day



May 26, 2004

/s/ Robert dArtois

Date

Robert dArtois
1996.

#### Smith *v.*The State.

Indictment for car-breaking, from Bibb superior court — Judge Felton. June *26,*1909.

Submitted July 14, —

Decided July 31, 1909.

*Hall £ Fowler,*for plaintiff in erorr.

*Walter J. Grace, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. The testimony for tlie defendant relating to the defense of alibi did not at best show the impossibility of his presence at the time of the commission of the crime, and there was no material error in the failure of the court to charge the jury specifically as to the defense of alibi, especially in the absence of a request to give such a charge.

2. The assignments of error of law are without merit, and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*
Barry MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 27, 2018]

Barry Moore, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor and May, JJ., concur.
a riNNAL Uil •

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0601 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

NOV 2 2 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

c- , of Supreme Court 

4,:tnin or Montana 

v. ORDER 

K.A.B., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Appellant K.A.B. moves this Court for appointment of counsel in this appeal. As 

grounds, K.A.B. states that "[o]n November 15, 2004, the First Judicial District Court 

ordered that a hearing would take place on Youth's K.A.B.'s Motion to Correct or Modify 

Judgment." K.A.B. provides that being "unable to take an appeal while the motion 

remained pending," any appeal would be premature. K.A.B. further states that "the District 

Court formally gave notice that the hearing would not take place[,]" on August 22, 2022. 

This Court observes that K.A.B. provided no copy of the court's notice or order 

when K.A.B. submitted his Notice of Appeal. We requested and reviewed a copy of the 

August 22, 2022 Order as well as the register of actions. 

K.A.B.'s original youth court proceeding commenced in 2003. The court record 

indicates that Youth Court supervision was transferred to adult court on May 11, 2004. On 

October 11, 2011, the District Court ordered that the records in the case be sealed, and on 

September 11, 2014, upon motion, the District Court entered an order to destroy the court 

files. 

K.A.B. filed a "Defendant's Pro Se Notice of Issue" with the District Court on 

August 18, 2022. The District Court denied his Notice of Issue on August 22, 2022, 

wherein the Judge hand-wrote that "(1) Sentence/disposition expired long ago and 

(2) Juvenile file destroyed Denied." 

K.A.B. has not presented a proper final judgment from the District Court. "An 

appeal may be taken by the defendant only from a final judgment of conviction and orders 

11/22/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0601
after judgment which affect the substantial rights of the defendant." Section 46-20-104(1), 

MCA. The court sentenced K.A.B. years ago and sealed the court's records in 2011. 

K.A.B. cannot revive a closed proceeding upon filing a notice of issue in the District Court 

more than a decade later. As such, his appeal is not properly before this Court. 

M. R. App. P. 4(5)(b)(i). 

Furtherrnore, K.A.B. is not entitled to appointment of counsel. There is no right to 

the appointment of counsel in a postconviction proceeding. Section 46-8-104, MCA. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that K.A.B.'s appeal is DISMISSED sua sponte and with 

prejudice for the reasons listed above. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that K.A.B.'s Motion for Appointrnent of Counsel is 

DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk of the Suprerne Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the 

Honorable Kathy Seeley, First Judicial District Court; Angie Sparks, Clerk of District 

Court, Lewis and Clark County, under Cause No. DJ 2003-02; counsel of record and 

K.A.B. personally. 

The Clerk is furthergirected to close this case of this Order's date. 

DATED this 2--day of November, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

xLi 44 4.1•L 

2
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 Digital Network Alliance International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Edward Chan, COO, CEO, and a director 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Edward Chan



Edward Chan, COO, CEO and

 a director

December 28, 2006
EX PARTE Shane Allen JOHNSEY

CR-16-0522

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand, pet. denied.
Gary L. WOODROFFE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATION MORTGAGE, a/k/a Fannie Mae, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Gregory L. CURTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2468

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

Gregory L. Curtis, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
# C_2021289EN.01001401.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

(Case C-182/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Adjustment of deductions - Insolvency proceedings - National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings)

(2021/C 289/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BE, DT

Defendants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice whereby the initiation of insolvency proceedings in respect of an economic operator, entailing the liquidation of its assets for the benefit of its creditors, automatically places an obligation on that operator to adjust the value added tax deductions which it has made in respect of goods and services acquired before it was declared insolvent, where the initiation of those proceedings is not such as to prevent that operator’s economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9 of that directive, from being continued, in particular for the purposes of the liquidation of the undertaking concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Beeson applications review.                    

*Date:*                         February 25, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institute on Aging, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 20892.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gianina Ramona Dumitrescu, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, National                               ( print page 107152)                            Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 8B, Rockville, MD 20892, (301) 827-0696,                         *ramona.dumitrescu@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 26, 2024.

Victoria E. Townsend, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-31423 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - (-)multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - (-)california(1)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        August 29, 2019        PubTalk 08/2019 — Pliocene World