alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 25, 2013

s0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146820

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146820

COA: 306673

Wayne CC: 11-000462-FC

DARRELL JAVOR WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 12004V348

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER I — PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS - Section 1 — The institutions - Subsection 4 — The European Commission - Article III-348***Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0155 - 0155*

Article III-348

1. Apart from normal replacement, or death, the duties of a member of the Commission shall end when he or she resigns or is compulsorily retired.

2. A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member's term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in Article I-26(4).

The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member's term of office is short.

3. In the event of resignation, compulsory retirement or death, the President shall be replaced for the remainder of his or her term of office in accordance with Article I-27(1).

4. In the event of resignation, compulsory retirement or death, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be replaced, for the remainder of his or her term of office, in accordance with Article I-28(1).

5. In the case of the resignation of all the members of the Commission, they shall remain in office and continue to deal with current business until they have been replaced, for the remainder of their term of office, in accordance with Articles I-26 and I-27.

--------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATIONS

Exhibit 31.1

I,
Jeffrey L. Schwartz, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Traffix, Inc. ("Registration");

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



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):



Date:
March 1, 2004

| |  |     |                                                                                
| |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: | /s/ JEFFREY L. SCHWARTZJEFFREY L. SCHWARTZ
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

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

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Eli
Harari, Chief Executive Officer of SanDisk Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the annual report on Form 10-K of SanDisk Corporation for the
year ended December 28, 2008 (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SanDisk
Corporation.





By:   /s/ Eli Harari


Eli Harari


Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal Executive
Officer)





February 25,
2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SanDisk Corporation and will be retained by SanDisk Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019312EN.01004301.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/43

---

Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Heitec v EUIPO — Hetec Datensysteme (HEITEC)

(Case T-520/19)

(2019/C 312/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Heitec AG (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: G. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hetec Datensysteme GmbH (Germering, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HEITEC — EU trade mark No 774 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 in Case R 1171/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

---
##### 



Exhibit 14.3 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
17th , 2003 on the financial statements of ALBRAS  Alumínio Brasileiro S.A., which
appear in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended December
31st, 2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30, 2005
Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATION







I, Timothy M. Doyle, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Imperial Capital Bancorp, 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. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;




c) 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




d) 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 our annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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: October 19, 2009





/s/ Timothy M. Doyle


Timothy M. Doyle


Executive Managing Director and


Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jack Gregory, certify that:



(1)    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Premier Holding Corp. for the period ended September 30, 2010;





(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(s) 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;





(c)     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





(d)     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(s) 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: November 2, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
# C_2019213EN.01002301.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/23

---

Appeal brought on 29 April 2019 by Souruh SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-440/16 Souruh v Council

(Case C-350/19 P)

(2019/C 213/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Souruh SA (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 appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-440/16); |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 28 February 2019 (T-440/16);

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 to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, 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) of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).

---
# C_2020423EN.01003601.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — CU v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-487/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Basic monthly salaries of officials recruited before 1 May 2004 - Application of a multiplication factor of less than one - Reduction of the multiplication factor - Error of law - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations)

(2020/C 423/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CU (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: B. Rentmeister, acting as Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr, T. Lilamand and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Committee of the Regions’ decision of 18 October 2018 promoting the applicant to grade AD 14, step 1, in so far as it set his multiplication factor at 0,9589951.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CU and the Committee of the Regions to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CU and the Committee of the Regions to bear their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---
Exhibit 31.2

I, Daniel L. Hefner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of American Commerce Solutions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other certifying officers
and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                     |  |  |  |                                               |  |              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|/s/ Daniel L. Hefner |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director |  | June 13, 2008
#### In re Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 10-2035.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 4, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains of delay in the district court’s response to a post-judgment filing in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceeding. After this Court initially misidentified the delay about which Williams complained and denied the mandamus petition, Williams filed a rehearing petition clarifying that he was complaining that the district court had delayed responding to his October 28, 2009, objections to an October 15, 2009, text order issued by the magistrate judge. We granted Williams’ rehearing petition.

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently entered an order adopting and affirming the magistrate judge’s October 15, 2009, text order. Accordingly, because the district court has acted on Williams’ objections to the magistrate judge’s text order, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. Williams’ motions to expedite and to amend are denied. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*