alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018052EN.01001702.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2017 — GE Power Controls Portugal — Unipessoal Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-643/17)

(2018/C 052/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Power Controls Portugal — Unipessoal Lda

Applicant:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In the light of Article 313(1) of the Implementing Regulation (1), are the goods referred to in the present case to be deemed to have Community status where it has not been established that they do not have such status, or [...] must they be deemed to be goods brought into the customs territory, for the purposes of Article 3 of the [Community customs] code (2), and covered by the exception provided for in the first part of Article 313(2)(a) of the Implementing Regulation, with the result that only goods in respect of which it has been proven that a procedure for releasing them for free circulation in the EC customs territory has been carried out are to be recognised as having Community status[?]

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) Noo 2454/93 of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code

1

o

(OJ 1993, L 253, p. 1)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) Noo 2913/92, 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs (Code OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1)

2

o

---
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 37 PageID 332
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 37 PageID 333
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 3 of 37 PageID 334
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 4 of 37 PageID 335
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 5 of 37 PageID 336
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 6 of 37 PageID 337
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 7 of 37 PageID 338
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 8 of 37 PageID 339
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 9 of 37 PageID 340
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 10 of 37 PageID 341
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 11 of 37 PageID 342
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 12 of 37 PageID 343
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 13 of 37 PageID 344
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 14 of 37 PageID 345
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 15 of 37 PageID 346
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 16 of 37 PageID 347
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 17 of 37 PageID 348
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 18 of 37 PageID 349
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 19 of 37 PageID 350
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 20 of 37 PageID 351
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 21 of 37 PageID 352
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 22 of 37 PageID 353
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 23 of 37 PageID 354
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 24 of 37 PageID 355
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 25 of 37 PageID 356
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 26 of 37 PageID 357
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 27 of 37 PageID 358
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 28 of 37 PageID 359
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 29 of 37 PageID 360
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 30 of 37 PageID 361
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 31 of 37 PageID 362
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 32 of 37 PageID 363
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 33 of 37 PageID 364
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 34 of 37 PageID 365
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 35 of 37 PageID 366
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 36 of 37 PageID 367
Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 37 of 37 PageID 368
STATE of Louisiana v. Antywane Eric WILLIAMS

No. 2018-KH-0447

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF BOSSIER**

PER CURIAM:

*79Denied. Applicant shows no lower court error.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Blake Clinton TALMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JERRY WAYNE MOONEY )

)

V. ) 3-05-CV-1432-N

) (ECF)

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has made a

de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which

objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SIGNED January 14, 2008.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01741-N Document 1 Filed 08/29/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
STATE of Louisiana v. Frankie BASKIN

No. 2018-KH-0867

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
Exhibit32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Annual Report of L-3Communications Holdings, Inc. ("L-3Holdings") and L-3 Communications Corporation("L-3 Corporation"; together with L-3Holdings referred to as "L-3") on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), each of Frank C. Lanza, Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer of L-3 Holdings and L-3 Corporation, andMichael T. Strianese, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof L-3 Holdings and L-3 Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                           |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations ofL-3. |

|                                     |  |                                                  |  |  |  |  |
|-------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| /s/Frank C. Lanza                   |  | /s/ Michael T.Strianese                          |
| Frank C. Lanza                      |  | Michael T.Strianese                              |
| Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |  | Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
| March 15, 2005                      |  | March 15,2005                                    |
|                                     |

----
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael Schmidt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information 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 for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure 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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control 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 materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer 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 of the 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 control
over financial reporting.



|                                       |  | 
|-------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2007                
|                                      
|/s/ Michael Schmidt                   
|Michael Schmidt                       
|Chief Financial Officer and, Secretary
# C_2018022EN.01001801.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/18

---

Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-348/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council

(Case C-551/17 P)

(2018/C 022/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, Advocate)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 23 November 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
Markeise Natwon EDWARDS v. STATE

CR-16-0962

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21



            Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                                             Jurisdiction of
Name                                           Formation

Jupiter Communications, Inc.                  Delaware
AdRelevance, Inc.                             Washington
Media Metrix Leasing, L.L.C.                  Delaware
MMXI Holdings, Inc.                           Delaware
Internet Research Group                       California
Net Market Makers                             California
MMXI Nordic                                   Sweden
RelevantKnowledge AB                          Sweden
Netcheck AG                                   Sweden
Jupiter Communications Scandinavia AB         Sweden
Jupiter Communications Australia Pty Ltd.     Australia
Media Metrix Brasil Ltda                      Brazil
MMXI Europe BV                                Netherlands
MMXI UK Limited                               United Kingdom
MMXI Deutschland GmbH                         Germany
MMXI France Eurl                              France
MMXI Espana                                   Spain
MMXI Italia SRL                               Italy
MMXI Switzerland GmbH                         Switzerland
JMXI Latin America B.V.                       Netherlands
Media Metrix Canada Co.                       Nova Scotia
Jupiter Media Metrix Japan KK                 Japan
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO*SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002***

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Heritage Bank (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Lee Stewart, President ofthe 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 
| /s/ J. Lee  Stewart |   |
|---------------------|--------|
| J. Lee Stewart      |
| President           |
| Aug 14, 2006        |

 

----
Edward James KORECKY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-0025

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 30, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION.**

AFFIRMED.
**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 **

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange                Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition                and results of operation of the                Company. |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                                                     |                                     |
|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                                                |                                |
| Date: December              28, 2007 | By:                                                                            | /s/ *Jeff              Huitt*  |
|                                      | Name: Jeff                HuittTitle: Chief                  Financial Officer |
Statement of FCA Board Member Jill Long Thompson

at the FCA Board Meeting

May 12, 2011

Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure that I raise an issue that some may think not particularly 

germane to the items before the Board today. But, I think I can make a convincing case. Over 

the past year, I have been struck by the number of quick trips Chairman Strom and his wife,

Twyla, have taken to attend any of a number of events at which one of their three children—all 

accomplished in their respective fields—have been honored. Just last weekend they flew to 

Wyoming to attend their daughter Amber’s graduation from Eastern Wyoming College, where 

she recently completed a degree in veterinary technology. Their son Derek holds the Ph.D. in 

physics and is currently at CERN in Switzerland working as a project leader on a 

superconductor supercollider project. And their son Tyler, who holds a master’s degree in 

sustainable agriculture from Lund University in Lund, Sweden, is currently working at the 

Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

These accomplishments are very impressive. But, the Chairman is not to be outdone by his 

children and I think all of us are very proud that he is being recognized by Northern Illinois 

University tomorrow when they award him the Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters.

Educational achievement comes in many forms and I believe the awarding of this degree to 

Chairman Strom reflects a lifelong commitment to learning, hard work, and leadership. It is an 

honor for him and his family, but it also reflects well on the Farm Credit Administration and I 

believe he honors us with this achievement. As I understand it, there will be a number of family 

members, including his mother, attending the ceremony in DeKalb, Illinois, tomorrow. I hope the 

Chairman realizes there will also be a number of us in the Farm Credit Administration family 

who will be there in spirit. Congratulations to Chairman Strom for this high honor.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  Subsidiaries
                                       of
                               OrthAlliance, Inc.


                                                           State of
Name                                                       Incorporation
----                                                       -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                         WA
Crawford Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                GA
Crum Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                    AZ
Halliburton Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                             TN
Horvath Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                 GA
Jayne Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                   AL
Lorentz Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                 MS
Mitchell Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                GA
OA Equipment, Inc.                                             IN
Only Orthodontics of South Miami, Inc.                         FL
Pence Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                   IN
Pickron Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                 GA
Rodeffer & Garner Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                       FL
Silver Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                  GA
Smernoff Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                VA
Yaffey Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                  FL
Yurfest Asset Subsidiary, Inc.                                 GA
OrthAlliance Finance, Inc.                                     DE
PedoAlliance, Inc.                                             DE
</TABLE>