alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019206EN.01002501.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/25 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 March 2019 — Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Case C-219/19) (2019/C 206/29) Language of the case: Italian Referring court Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Parsec Fondazione Parco delle Scienze e della Cultura Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) Question referred Does recital 14 in conjunction with Articles 19(1) and 80(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU ( 1 ) preclude a legal provision such as Article 46 of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, by which Italy transposed Directives 2014/23/EU, ( 2 ) 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU ( 3 ) into national law, which permits only economic operators created in the legal forms indicated in that provision to take part in tendering procedures for the award of ‘architectural and engineering services’, which has the effect of excluding from participation in such procedures economic operators that perform such services using a different legal form? ( 1 )  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65). ( 2 )  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1). ( 3 )  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).

---
Exhibit 32.1

THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul KatzeffChief Executive Officer April 2,
2007
**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 annual report ofSentaida Tire Company Limited(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Long Qin, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 Company.

|                |   |   | /s/ Long Qin                              |   |   |
|----------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                |   |   | Long Qin                                  |   |   |
|                |   |   | *President & Chief Executive Officer* |   |   |
|           |        |        |                                           |        |        |
|           |        |        |                                           |        |        |
| March 30, 2009 |   |   |                                           |   |   |

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or        after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT
10.42


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 3


 


to


 


EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT dated as of February 27, 2015 (the “Amendment”) by and between Alan Johnson
(the “Executive”) and Eventure Interactive, Inc. (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company entered into an Employment Services Agreement with the Executive as of November 21, 2012, as amended by Amendment
No. 1, dated as of March 10, 2014 and Amendment No. 2, dated as of February 2, 2015 (the “Employment Services Agreement”)
pursuant to which Executive serves as the Company’s Chief Corporate Development Officer; and


 


WHEREAS,
Executive and the Company wish to modify certain arrangements under the Employment Services Agreement in the manner set forth
herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


 


1.      Section
2(c) of the Employment Services Agreement is amended to read as follows:


 


“(c)    However,
the parties agree that: (i) Executive may devote a reasonable amount of his time to civic, community, or charitable activities
and may serve as an investor, employee, director and/or executive officer of other corporations (provided that any such other
corporation is not a competitor of the Company, as determined by the Board) and to other types of business or public activities
not expressly mentioned in this paragraph, so long as Executive’s responsibilities with respect thereto do not conflict
or interfere with the faithful performance of his duties to the Company.”


 


2.      No
Further Changes.  Until the resignation of Executive, all other terms of the Employment Services Agreement shall
continue with full force and effect.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 



    	 



    




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written. 


	EXECUTIVE:	 	COMPANY:
    
	 	 	 	 
	/s/
    Alan Johnson	 	By:	/s/
    Gannon Giguiere
	Alan Johnson	 	Name:  Gannon Giguieree
	 	 	Title:  President
##### 



Exhibit 14.12 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the
Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of
CVRD and Vale Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas of our report dated January 14, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of Mineração Rio do Norte S.A. which appears in the Annual Report on
Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended December 31, 2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 25, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D21-670 & 3D21-1220 Lower Tribunal No. 20-4958

________________ 

### Walgreen Co., etc. , Appellant,
vs. 

### 947 Lincoln Road Holdings, LLC, etc. ,

Appellee. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Mitrani, Rynor, Adamsky & Toland, P.A., and Isaac J. Mitrani and Loren H. Cohen; Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Elliot H. Scherker and Brigid F. Cech Samole and Bethany J.M. Pandher, for appellant. Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP and Bruce Weil and Tyler Ulrich; Heise Suarez Melville, P.A., and Mark J. Heise; Joel S. Perwin, P.A., and Joel S. Perwin, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30098 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. JON AT H AN J ER M AI N E G U I LLO RY , a l s o kno w n a s J

- Roc k, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C R

- 20098- 3
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e at t or neyappoi nt ed t o r eprese nt Jonat han Jer m ai ne G ui l l or y has
m o ve d f o r l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A nder s v. C a lif o rn ia , 3 86 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. G ui l l o r yha s no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . Our i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r i vo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d i n g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is GRANTED, c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a nd t he A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee 5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 25, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-30098 Document: 00511120381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2010
#### In the Matter of Charles I. Anderson, Petitioner, v Joseph A. Mogavero, Jr., as County Judge of Otsego County, Respondent.

— Main, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

In February 1985, petitioner submitted to respondent an application for a pistol permit. In that application, petitioner indicated that he had never been arrested but that a previous pistol permit application by him had been denied. Thereafter, respondent learned that petitioner’s previous application had been denied because petitioner had failed to reveal on that application that he had been arrested and charged with assault in the third degree in Putnam County in 1981. Consequently, respondent denied petitioner’s application. Petitioner’s attorney then sent a letter to respondent asking him to reconsider his decision, explaining that, while petitioner had been aware that he had been involved in an incident in Putnam County that led to a court appearance, he had not thought that he had actually been arrested. Respondent, noting that petitioner could have explained this on the application itself, refused to alter his decision denying the application and informed petitioner that he should fully explain the Putnam County incident on any future pistol permit application.

As Otsego County’s pistol licensing officer, respondent has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications, which he may deny for any good cause *(Matter of King v Ingraham,*113 AD2d 977; *Matter of Colin v People,*92 AD2d 697, 698; *Matter of Davis v Clyne,*58 AD2d 947, *lv denied*44 NY2d 646). We should not disturb his determination unless it is arbitrary and capricious *(Matter of King v Ingraham, supra; Matter of Davis v Clyne, supra).*Here, as noted by respondent, petitioner could have written in his permit application the very same information that was relayed to respondent after the fact by petitioner’s attorney. In our view, petitioner’s failure to so apprise respondent at the time of his application provided grounds for respondent’s denial of the application. Since we cannot say that respondent’s determination was either arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb his decision.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without *886costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### LIEBMANN v. LIEBMANN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Joseph Liebmann, as sole surviving executor, etc., against Henry L. Liebmann, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Motion denied. Order filed.
#### Total Concept Carpentry, Inc., Respondent, v Tower Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 473]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered May 6, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that defendant breached its contractual obligation to defend and indemnify additional insured Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. (Avalon) in an underlying personal injury action and that defendant is liable to plaintiff for damages for breach of that contract, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiff in connection with the underlying action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs motion denied, defendant’s cross motion granted and it is so declared.

Based on the four corners of the insurance agreement *(see e.g. Stainless, Inc. v Employers Fire Ins. Co.,*69 AD2d 27, 33 [1979], *affd*49 NY2d 924 [1980]), defendant had no duty to defend or indemnify because it established that there was “no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” *(Allstate Ins. Co. v Zuk,*78 NY2d 41, 45 [1991]; *see Town of Massena v Healthcare Underwriters Mut. Ins. Co.,*98 NY2d 435, 445 [2002]). The record shows that defendant properly disclaimed coverage to plaintiff contractor based on the Employer’s Liability exclusion in the policy. This provision excludes coverage for bodily injury to an employee of the insured (plaintiff) arising out of and in the course of his or her employment or performance. Although this particular exclusion does not apply to liability the insured assumed under an “insured contract,” the Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement deletes any reference in the definition of “insured contract” to a “contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.”

*412Moreover, Tower’s disclaimer to Avalon relied on the Additional Insured endorsement that states: “[t]his insurance does not apply to acts or omissions of the Additional Insured nor liability imposed on the additional insured by statute, ordinance or law.” In the underlying lawsuit, the court dismissed all claims against Avalon except for those based on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Even though Avalon could be found actively negligent under Labor Law § 241 (6), the endorsement excludes coverage for Avalon’s acts or omissions.

In view of the foregoing and because of defendant’s disclaimer of coverage to Avalon based on the Additional Insured endorsement, we decline to address defendant’s contention that plaintiff had no standing to contest the propriety of its disclaimer to Avalon. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, ManzanetDaniels and Román, JJ.
<PAGE>






                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Home Director, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald B. Witmer,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:

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

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



          August 15, 2003                  /s/ Donald B. Witmer
                                           --------------------
                                           Donald B. Witmer
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


                                       22

<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Emilio RIVERA-PINON, also known as El Charrito, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20731

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 23, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Adler, Bellaire, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*158PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Emilio Rivera-Pinon (Rivera) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Rivera has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rivera’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th CiR. R. 42.2. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 99.2 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinewire Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hani Zabaneh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Hani Zabaneh

___________________________

Hani Zabaneh

Principal Financial Officer

March 31, 2003
#### In re FOSTER AVE. IN CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Ctiurt, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

In the matter of the application of the city of New York relative to acquiring title, etc., for the purpose of opening Foster avenue, etc.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7154

ANTHONY RAY HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF WAKE; UNKNOWN WORKER; SHERIFF OF WAKE COUNTY; MRS. 

SCOTT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:11-ct-03044-FL)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Ray Harris, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Ray Harris seeks to appeal an unspecified

district court order entered in his action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). This court may exercise jurisdiction only 

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Neither of the orders entered on 

the district court sheet is a final order or an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Harris’ 

motion for release and dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED