alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### POPE, Respondent, v. MICHEL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Peter G. Pope against Frederick P. Michel.

No opinion. Judgment modified so far as it awards costs against the defendant, and a clause inserted to the effect that neither party shall recover costs against the other, and so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. See West v. City of Utica, 71 Hun, 540-547, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1075.
# C_2019288EN.01002101.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

(Case C-374/19)

(2019/C 288/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HF

Defendant: Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

Question referred

Does a taxable person who produces an investment object with regard to taxable use with entitlement to input tax deduction (in this case: construction of a building for the operation of a cafeteria) have to adjust the input tax deduction under Article 185(1) and Article 187 of the VAT Directive (1) if he ceases the sales activity justifying the input tax deduction (in this case: operation of the cafeteria) and the investment object now remains unused in the scope of the previously taxable use?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1).

---
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CONSENT OF NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC**

 

Board of Directors Regal Entertainment Group 7132 Regal Lane Knoxville, TN 37918

 

Members of the Board:

 

We hereby consent to the use by Regal Entertainment Group (the “Company”) of the audited financial statements of National CineMedia, LLC as of and for the year ended December 29, 2011 (and comparative periods) appearing in the Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2011 filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendment thereto.

 

 
|   | National   CineMedia, LLC                          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By   National CineMedia, Inc., its managing member |
|   |                                                    |   |
|   | By:                                                     | /s/ RALPH   E. HARDY |
|   |                                                    | Ralph   E. Hardy |
|   |                                                    | *Executive Vice President, General   Counsel and Secretary* |
|   |                                                    | March 28,   2012 |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME, WHICH ARE
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FILED HEREWITH, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              90
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      436
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (23)
<INVENTORY>                                        474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1070
<PP&E>                                           2,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,211)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              700
<BONDS>                                            885
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           873
<OTHER-SE>                                       (173)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,284
<SALES>                                          5,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,653
<CGS>                                            3,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (71)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (83)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Sean Stover, as Chief Financial Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc. (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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 operations
of the Company.



|                     |  |                               
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/  Sean Stover              
|                     |  | Name: Sean Stover             
|                     |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NextMedia Operating, Inc. and will be retained by NextMedia Operating, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2020045EN.01001302.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/13

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del M)

(Case C-713/19 P)

(2020/C 45/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ramón Guiral Broto (represented by: A. Sirimarco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Café del Mar, SC, José Les Viamonte, Carlos Andrea González and European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs.

---
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 of Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Philip Rosner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer certify, to the best of
my knowledge, 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 and 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 operations
          of the Company.

Date: March 17, 2004


/s/ Philip Rosner
------------------------------------
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



NOTE: A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       24
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 4, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JAN B. HAMILTON, Ph.D., d/b/a Nutritional Biomedicine, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-1381 (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01815-LTB-MJW) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.
Chicago Insurance Co. (“CIC”) filed this diversity case seeking a declaratory judgment that Jan Hamilton wasn’t covered for losses she incurred as a result of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners. When Ms. Hamilton failed to file a timely answer to CIC’s complaint and missed multiple discovery deadlines, a magistrate judge-2- recommended default judgment in favor of CIC. He advised Ms. Hamilton of her right to object to the recommendation, the deadline for doing so, and that failing to object would prejudice review in the district and appellate courts. Nonetheless, Ms. Hamilton did not file any objection. She now appeals the resulting default judgment. Unless a party files a timely objection in the district court, she can’t ordinarily challenge the magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions on appeal. See Duffield v. Jackson , 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008). But we have recognized two exceptions: 1) when a pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object; or 2) when the interests of justice require review. Id. Ms. Hamilton can’t invoke the first exception: there’s no dispute that the magistrate judge informed her both of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. Neither can she prevail on the second. The “interest of justice” standard is, this court has held, akin to plain error review, and Ms. Hamilton simply doesn’t explain how default judgment in this case — entered after she repeatedly failed to comply with the magistrate’s orders — “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Morales-Fernandez v. INS , 418 F.3d 1116, 1122-23 (10th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Because Ms. Hamilton failed to present any nonfrivolous arguments in support of the issues on appeal,-3- her motion to proceed in forma pauperisis denied, as are all other motions pending in this case.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 31.2



                                    CERTIFICATION
                               PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Hua Meng, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of Dahua 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 officer 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 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 functions):

      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:   September 15, 2006



/s/ Hua Meng
---------------------------------
Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John Kehoe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the period
covered by this report, of MS Structured Asset Corp. on behalf of SATURNS Trust
No. 2002-3;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and
the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based
upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: LaSalle Bank National
Association and its officers and agents.



                                                         By:      /s/ John Kehoe
                                                            --------------------
                                                         Name:    John Kehoe
                                                         Title:   Vice President
                                                         Date:    March 30, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30963

Summary Calendar

ALVIN MEAD,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:08-CV-3173

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alvin Mead, Louisiana prisoner # 310779, appeals the denial of his second

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his conviction for possession of cocaine. 

The district court denied the application as time barred but nevertheless granted

Mead a certificate of appealability on his claim of actual innocence.

If necessary, we must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte. 

Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Mead’s second § 2254

application raised a claim of actual innocence that could have been raised in his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-30963 Document: 00511578801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2011
No. 10-30963

earlier application; therefore, the second application was successive. See Crone

v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 2003).

As a prisoner seeking to file a second or successive § 2254 application,

Mead was required to apply for leave from this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

His failure to do so rendered his second application unauthorized, thus depriving

the district court of jurisdiction. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th

Cir. 2000). As such, we lack jurisdiction over this habeas appeal. See id. at 775. 

The judgment of the district court is thus VACATED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

 

2

Case: 10-30963 Document: 00511578801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2011
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 914 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 914

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the waiver of the 
  collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of 
                   veterans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2011

 Mr. Begich (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Tester) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the waiver of the 
  collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of 
                   veterans, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE COLLECTION OF COPAYMENTS FOR TELEHEALTH 
              AND TELEMEDICINE VISITS OF VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1722A the following 
new section:
``Sec. 1722B. Copayments: waiver of collection of copayments for 
              telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans
    ``The Secretary may waive the imposition or collection of 
copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans under the 
laws administered by the Secretary.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 17 of such title is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 1722A the following new item:

``1722B. Copayments: waiver of collection of copayments for telehealth 
                            and telemedicine visits of veterans.''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2021

No. 04-21-00210-CV

Randy RUSTON and Amanda Ruston,

Appellants

v.

JUMP ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4696

Honorable Bob Brendel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT 

OF JURISDICTION. We order that no costs be assessed against appellants Randy Ruston and 

Amanda Ruston.

It is so ORDERED on August 11, 2021.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of August, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
# C_2019280EN.01002701.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against ZW

(Case C-454/19)

(2019/C 280/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Heilbronn

Party to the main proceedings

ZW

Questions referred

| 1. | Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions?

| 2. | If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

---