alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016222EN.01003401.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/34

---

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Gfi PSF v Commission

(Case T-200/16)

(2016/C 222/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gfi PSF Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 2 March 2016, the decision of 16 March 2016 and the decision of 22 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of European public contract No 10573 ‘Development, maintenance, evolution and support services for Internet sites based on SharePoint technology and drafting services for publication on the Internet’, published by notice of 17 December 2015, for Lot No 1 with a total value of EUR 2 005 704 over four years; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 2 March 2016, the decision of 16 March 2016 and the decision of 22 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of European public contract No 10573 ‘Development, maintenance, evolution and support services for Internet sites based on SharePoint technology and drafting services for publication on the Internet’, published by notice of 17 December 2015, for Lot No 1 with a total value of EUR 2 005 704 over four years;

| — | order the Office to pay the applicant compensation for damage suffered in the amount of EUR 415 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay the applicant compensation for damage suffered in the amount of EUR 415 000;

| — | order the Office to pay the expenses incurred by the applicant and by the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay the expenses incurred by the applicant and by the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and an infringement of Article 111(4)(b) of Regulation No 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1).

---
**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 James River Coal Company (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samuel M. Hopkins,
      II, Chief Accounting 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:






(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
                registrant.









August
      15, 2005




/s/    
                Samuel M. Hopkins, IISamuel
                M. Hopkins, IITitle: 
                Chief Accounting Officer
EX PARTE Isaac Isahas WASHINGTON

1160996 (CR-16-0571)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Leroy Vijay GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-571

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
v U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

OR\ GIN AL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEKAS DEC | 6 2008

DALLAS DIVISION
CLERK, U. ICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) By ee
VS. } CASE NO.: 3:04-CR-272-M (04)
ENRIQUE MANTEROLA MUEDANO }

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ENRIQUE MANTEROLA MUEDANO, by consent, under authority of United States v.
Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5" Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has
entered a plea of guilty to Count(s) 1 of the superseding Information. After cautioning and
examining ENRIQUE MANTEROLA MUEDANO under oath concerning each of the subjects
mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that
the offense(s) charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential
elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty, and the plea agreement, be
accepted, and that ENRIQUE MANTEROLA MUEDANDO be adjudged guilty and have sentence
imposed accordingly.

Date: December 16, 2008

PAUL D. STICKNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE
Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within ten (10) days

from the date of its service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and
Recommendation before the assigned United States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B).
# C_2016175EN.01003301.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/33

---

Action brought on 31 March 2016 — SDSR v EUIPO — Berghaus (BERG OUTDOOR)

(Case T-139/16)

(2016/C 175/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berghaus Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BERG OUTDOOR’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 116 936

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 153/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to grant the registration of International trademark no. 1116936 designating the EU in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to grant the registration of International trademark no. 1116936 designating the EU in its entirety;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
William Joseph JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1758

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of  Golden  State  Petroleum  Transport
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or about the
date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Tor Olav  Tr0im,  President  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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: March 31, 2004

/s/ Tor Olav Tr0im
-----------------------
Tor Olav Tr0im
President

02089.0006 #475286
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 30 , 2024

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00031

- CR

JESSICA ELAINTRELL SMITH , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 426th District Court Bell County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. 82378

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jessica Elaintrell Smith has signed and filed a written motion to dismiss her appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appell ant’s request.

W e dismiss the appeal . We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate2 of the court immediately. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Wi lson.
Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY, a public body corporate, Petitioner, v. Ann L. Wead KIMBROUGH, Respondent.

No. 1D19-0217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 2019

Maria A. Santoro of Dennis Jackson Martin & Fontela, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma* , 583 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ("Petitioner cannot evade the time requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c) by filing successive motions addressed to the same issue.")

Lewis, Wetherell, and Jay, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “report”) of Harbor Global Company Ltd.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)[paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 18, 2005
Case 2:04-cv-00083-J Document 9 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 62
*

Because the magistrate judge is addressing a summary judgment motion, his use of the term

“findings” does not refer to factual findings, and the court does not by this order adopt factual

findings.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRIGHT SIAW AFRIYIE, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2467-D

VS. §

 §

CITY OF DALLAS, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

December 22, 2006 findings and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the court

concludes that the findings* and recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct, and the

recommendation is adopted. Accordingly, defendant’s August 22, 2006 motion for summary

judgment is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice by judgment filed today.

SO ORDERED.

January 22, 2007.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02467-D Document 40 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 418
UNPUBLISHED Filed: May 30, 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1677

VULCAN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, Plaintiffs - Appellees,*

versus
PHILLIP J. BARKER, d/b/a Sabra Asia, Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

_______________
On May 29, 2001, at 11:55 a.m., E.D.T., Judge Widener entered an order as a single judge under F.R.A.P. 8 due to the requirements of time, which order stayed an order of the district court entered in this case which enjoined Barker from appearing in any other proceeding in any other court until the Vulcan plaintiffs’ petition to vacate the California arbitration award had been disposed of in the district court for the Western District of Virginia. On that same day, May 29, 2001, the Vulcan plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Widener’s order of May 29, andalso on that same day our clerk’s office assigned Judge Motz and Judge King as the other members of a panel to review Judge Widener’s said order. In their said motion for reconsideration filed May 29, 2001, the Vulcan defendants requested immediate consideration of that motion, noting in the motion and by letter that the California Superior Court had set a hearing on the merits of the case, among other things, for today, May 30, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (5:00 p.m. E.D.T.). The panel has considered on its merits the motion of the Vulcan defendants to reconsider the said order of Judge Widener of May 29, and, in so doing, it has considered all of the papers, including letters, submitted to it by the attorneys. The panel is of opinion that the said order of Judge Widener of May 29, 2001 is free from error. It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said motion of the Vulcan defendants for reconsideration of Judge Widener’s order of May 29, 2001 shall be, and the same hereby is, denied. With the concurrences of Judge Motz and Judge King. Entered at 2:50 p.m. E.D.T. May 30, 2001.
/s/

__________________________ H. E. Widener, Jr. For the Court * The plaintiffs here are the defendants in the case in the California state court.
Exhibit













Senior Vice President, Operations


Compensation Package




		
	Employer and Location:
	Bristow Group Inc. located at 2103 City West Blvd., 4th Floor, Houston, Texas  77042


		
	Compensation Structure:
	US based employment


		
	Base Salary:
	$325,000 per year


		
	Bonus Percentage:
	Participation in the Incentive Compensation Plan including cash bonuses and stock options and grants in accordance with an Officer position. Current annual incentive compensation at this level is a target bonus of 65% of Base Salary with a maximum of 162.5% of Base Salary.  


		
	LTIP:
	Current target value of the Long Term Incentive Program at 240% of base salary.  You will be eligible to participate in the next annual grant scheduled for June 2017.    


		
	Health & Benefit Plans:
	Standard coverage in the US


		
	Executive Life Insurance:
	In addition to standard coverage, you are eligible for additional life coverage of $500,000 with the premium paid by Bristow. 


		
	401(k) Plan and Matching:
	Standard 3% match + an additional 3% of base salary at the end of the calendar year based on eligible compensation for the year.


		
	Deferred Compensation:
	In addition to the 401(k) Plan, you are also enrolled in a deferred compensation plan which will “top up” all 401k contributions made to 15%. Additionally you may elect to defer a portion of your base salary and/or annual bonus in to this plan.  All assets are held in a Rabbi Trust and therefore open to general creditors.




		
	Change of Control:
	Included in the standard severance policy which provides three (3) times the sum of your annual base salary and your highest annual bonus should the termination occurs during or at the end of a Change in Control period.


		
	Termination without Cause: 
	Standard severance policy which provides payment of one (1) year base salary, full vesting of your outstanding LTIP awards and payment of your annual bonus prorated to date of separation.








	
			
	Bristow Group Inc.    2103 City West Blvd., 4th Floor, Houston, Texas 77042 United States    
	 

	t  (713) 267 7600    bristowgroup.com
# C_2019035EN.01000401.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — Harry Mensing v Finanzamt Hamm

(Case C-264/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 314 - Article 316 - Article 322 - Special arrangements for works of art - Margin scheme - Taxable dealers - Supply of works of art by the creator or his successors in title - Intra-Community transactions - National tax authorities’ refusal to grant a taxable person the right to opt for application of the margin scheme - Conditions under which applicable - Right to deduct input tax - Works of art, collectors’ items and antiques))

(2019/C 35/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harry Mensing

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamm

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer may opt for the application of the margin scheme to the input supply of works of art which were supplied in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply, by the creator or his successors in title, when those persons do not fall within the categories of persons listed in Article 314 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer may opt for the application of the margin scheme to the input supply of works of art which were supplied in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply, by the creator or his successors in title, when those persons do not fall within the categories of persons listed in Article 314 of that directive.

| 2. | A taxable dealer may not opt for the application of the margin scheme laid down in Article 316(1)(b) of the VAT Directive to an input supply of works of art that were supplied to him in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply and, at the same time, claim a right to deduct input VAT in the situations in which such a right is precluded under Article 322(b) of that directive, if that latter provision has not been transposed into national law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A taxable dealer may not opt for the application of the margin scheme laid down in Article 316(1)(b) of the VAT Directive to an input supply of works of art that were supplied to him in the context of an exempt intra-Community supply and, at the same time, claim a right to deduct input VAT in the situations in which such a right is precluded under Article 322(b) of that directive, if that latter provision has not been transposed into national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

ANNE JOSEPH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-065-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

March 15, 2006 (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March

20, 2006 (Doc. 24). The court has made a de novo determination of the Report and

Recommendation after consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the submissions of the parties, and

the transcript of the administrative proceedings. 

The court finds the objections to be without merit. The court further finds that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports his decision. The court

also finds that the Report and Recommendation applied the correct legal standards.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00065-C Document 30 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 111
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00065-C Document 30 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 112