alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019172EN.01001601.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/16

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Razan Othman against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-416/16 Othman v Council

(Case C-158/19 P)

(2019/C 172/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Razan Othman (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-416/16, Othman v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-416/16, Othman v Council of the European Union;

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of his action for annulment to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).

---
#### JOHNSON, Respondent, v. POST et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 8, 1898.)

Action by Severin Christine Johnson, etc., as administratrix, etc., of John Johnson, etc., deceased, against Andrew J. Post and William H. McCord.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# C_2019182EN.01001102.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2019 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-97/19)

(2019/C 182/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Question referred

Is Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, according to that provision, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, a customs declaration must be checked and corrected in such a way that the particulars relating to the declarant are replaced by the designation of the person to whom an import licence was issued for the imported goods, and this person is represented by the person who was named as the declarant in the customs declaration and who has submitted a power of attorney from the holder of the import licence to the customs office?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 on Form 10-K of Meru Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Brett White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best ofhis knowledge, that: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Home Director, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, ROBERT N. WISE, the President and Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
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:  May 15, 2003



                                    /s/  Robert N. Wise
                                   -------------------------
                                   Robert N. Wise,
                                   President and Chief Operating Officer



<PAGE>
# C_2019213EN.01000701.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 14 March 2019 — DX

(Case C-227/19)

(2019/C 213/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DX

Respondent authority: Bürgermeister der Stadt Graz

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or a failure to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or a failure to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11).

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Marvin Rounick, President and Chief Executive Officer of Deb Shops, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Date: June 9, 2004





                                           Marvin Rounick
                                           --------------
                                           Marvin Rounick
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Hartwood Club, Inc., Respondent, v Josephine Kent, as Assessor of the Town of Deerpark, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 and CPLR article 78, to review the denial of a forest land tax exemption, the assessor of the Town of Deerpark and the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Deerpark appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sullivan, J.), entered May 29, 1984, which granted the petition.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term that petitioner is entitled to a forest land tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 480-a (3) (a). Petitioner complied with instructions supplied by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The DEC was authorized by Real Property Tax Law § 480-a (3) (a) (i) to issue instructions on how to qualify for the forest land tax exemption. That provision states: "[s]uch commitment shall be * * * filed * * * in such a manner and in such form as may be prescribed by the [DEC]”.

In accordance with a DEC directive dated January 3, 1983, petitioner delivered two copies of the annual commitment form, one of which was certified, to the County Clerk of Orange County. The County Clerk failed to forward the certified copy to the Assessor of the Town of Deerpark. Therefore, the tax exemption was denied.

While neither Real Property Tax Law § 480-a (3) nor the DEC directive specifically directs the County Clerk to forward the certified copy to the local Assessor, we must construe the directive in the landowner’s favor since we must resolve ambiguities in tax statutes in favor of the taxpayer *(see,*
      *699
      *Matter of Bay View Towers Apts. v State Tax Commn.,*40 NY2d 856; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 313). Therefore, the failure to file a certified copy of the annual commitment form with the local Assessor must be charged to the County Clerk, and not to the petitioner. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
**E** **xhibit
      10.17**


**CAPITAL
      CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT**





This
      Agreement is entered into by and between Tianshi
      International Holdings Group Limited (“Tianshi Holdings”), a legal entity
      incorporated under the law of the British Virgin Islands and Tianshi
      International Investment Group Co., Ltd. (“Tianshi Investment”), a
      legal
      entity incorporated under the law of the British Virgin Islands in
      Tianjin, China on this 21 st day of
      December, 2007.




RECITALS




Whereas,
      Tianshi Holdings and Tianshi Investment have entered into a Sale and Purchase
      Agreement dated December 20, 2007, pursuant to which Tianshi Holdings will
      acquire 100% of the registered share capital of Tianjin
      Tiens Life Resources Co., Ltd., a wholly-foreign-owned enterprise formed under
      the laws of the P.R.C. (“Life Resources”) from
      Tianshi Investment; and




Whereas,
      the transfer of the share capital of Life Resources requires the government’s
      approval to become final; and




Whereas,
      Tianshi Investment desires to increase the capital contribution of Life
      Resources; and




Whereas,
      Tianshi Holdings desires to pay back Tianshi Investment the amount of the
      capital contribution once the transfer of the share capital of Life Resources
      from Tianshi Investment to Tianshi Holdings has become final.




Now,
      therefore, the parties do hereby agree as follows.





AGREEMENT





1.
            CAPITAL
                CONTRIBUTION




Tianshi
      Investment agrees to fund an increase in the capital contribution of Life
      Resources in an amount of Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand U.S. dollars
      (US$7,500,000) (the “Capital Contribution”).




1




2.
            REIMBURSEMENT




Provided
      that the government approves the transfer of the share capital of Life Resources
      to Tianshi Holdings, Tianshi Holdings shall pay back to Tianshi Investment
      the
      amount of the Capital Contribution. The Capital Contribution shall be paid
      by
      Tianshi Holdings within five days of the date the government approves the
      transfer; provided however that if the government does not approve the transfer,
      Tianshi Holdings shall have no obligation to pay back the Capital Contribution
      to Tianshi Investment.





3.
            Effective
                Date




This
      Agreement is effective as of the date first written above.







Tianshi
      International Holdings Group Limited




[COMPANY
      SEAL AFFIXED]




Address:
      29 th Floor
      No. 133 Wanzai Road HongKong


By:
      /s/
      Jinyuan Li


Legal
      Representative: Jinyuan Li








Tianshi
      International Investment Group Co., Ltd.




[COMPANY
      SEAL AFFIXED]




Address:
      Room 2402-03, 24/F., New York Life Tower, Windsor House, 311 Gloucester Road,
      Causeway Bay, Hong Kong


By:
      /s/
      Jinyuan Li


Legal
      Representative: Jinyuan Li




2
July 14, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMMANUEL WIGGINS, Appellant

NOS. 14-15-00480-CR

14-15-00481-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### WINANT, Respondent, v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COAST CO., et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by William A. Winant against the Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Coast Company and another.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
**Exhibit 32**

AMANASU TECHNO HOLDINGS**Certification of President and Principal Financial Officer			Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,			As Adopted Pursuant to			Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

			Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of the			registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's Annual			Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K")			fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities			Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K,			fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results			of operations of the registrant.		

 Dated: June 2, 2010
			 By: /s/ Atsushi Maki					Atsushi Maki					Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, & Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 776 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 776

    To provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 8, 2011

   Mr. Warner (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Webb) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    Federal employees furloughed as a result of any lapse in 
appropriations which begins on or about April 9, 2011, shall be 
compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of 
such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse 
in appropriations ends.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. SEC.1350)

     I, Sherice P. Bench, Chief Financial Officer of American Achievement
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

          (1) The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended
     August 31, 2002 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date: November 21, 2002

                                                 /s/ SHERICE P. BENCH
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Sherice P. Bench
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.2





Exhibit 10.2


November 30, 2009


James E. Braun 

Newpark Resources, Inc. 

Vice President &


Chief Financial Officer 

2700 Research Forest Drive, Suite 100 

The Woodlands, TX 77381


Re: Extension of salary reduction


Dear James:


This letter sets forth the terms of our agreement
relating to the extension of the 10% reduction of your annualized Base Salary and the corresponding adjustment to
your incentive compensation under the EICP as set forth in the Amendment to the Employment Agreement, dated
April 21, 2009 (the “Amendment”), between you and Newpark Resources, Inc.
(“Company”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the
Amendment, the Employment Agreement, dated September 18, 2006, between you and the Company (the
“Employment Agreement”) and the Change in Control Agreement, dated January 7, 2008, between you
and the Company (the “Change in Control Agreement”). The terms of our agreement with regard to the
extension are as follows:


1. The 10% reduction to your annualized Base
Salary as set forth in the Amendment will continue in effect through March 31, 2010.


2. Beginning April 1, 2010, your annualized
Base Salary will be Two Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Dollars and No Cents ($298,920.00).


3. Your Base Salary for purposes of calculating
payments under the EICP will likewise be adjusted through March 31, 2010 to reflect this 10% reduction in your
annualized Base Salary.


4. If your employment is terminated prior to
March 31, 2010 pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement, your “lump sum payment”
will be calculated based upon your $298,920.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your “current annual Base
Salary” of $269,028.00.


5. If your employment is terminated prior to
March 31, 2010 pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Change in Control Agreement as a result of a Change in
Control (as defined therein) or a Potential Change in Control (as defined therein), your Termination Benefit will
be calculated based upon your $298.920.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your base salary at the time of
termination of $269,028.00.





1









 





6. This 10% reduction in your annualized Base
Salary and the corresponding adjustment to your incentive compensation under the EICP do not constitute
“Good Reason” for termination by you, as defined in Section 2.3 and 3.10(b) of the Employment
Agreement, or a termination by the Company. Except for the foregoing modifications, the Amendment and the
Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


Sincerely,


Newpark Resources, Inc.


By:
/s/ Paul L. Howes                                                        

Name:
Paul L. Howes

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer




Agreed to and Accepted
this 1st day of
December, 2009.


/s/ James E. Braun                                                       


James E. Braun



-2-





2
Exhibit
32.1





Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, George E. Daddis Jr., the Principal
Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q/A of WorldGate
Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, which this
certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
information contained in the Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.





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





Dated:  March
      31, 2010
            
            /s/George E. Daddis Jr.George
      E. Daddis Jr.Chief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)