alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017369EN.01003901.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/39

---

Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-629/17)

(2017/C 369/53)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 99(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 (1) laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. The Commission imposed financial corrections for alleged irregularities in awards of public contracts which, however, constitute a procedure permitted by Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18. The Commission wrongly takes the view that the exception to the rules for the award of public contracts under Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18 concerning programme content applies only to contracting authorities which are broadcasters.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

2

---
Case 1:07-cv-05425-AKH     Document 7      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05425-AKH     Document 7      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05425-AKH     Document 7      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 International Card Establishment Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Candace Mills, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.


April 15, 2011
By:
/s/  Candace MillsCandace MillsChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2017104EN.01005701.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/57

---

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)

(Case T-67/17)

(2017/C 104/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tèespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 517

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 959/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;

| — | order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2019103EN.01002102.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic

(Case C-206/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/24)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---
154 So. 604

#### TURNER TERMINAL CO. v. STATE.

1 Div. 820.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 10, 1934.

Inge, Stallworth & Inge, of Mobile, for petitioner.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed.

BOULDIN, Justice.

Petition of the Turner Terminal Company for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Turner Terminal Co. v. State, 154 So. 602.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 15  Randall N. Drake, C.P.A., P.A.  1981 Promenade Way Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 536-4863     Acknowledgement of the use of a report on unaudited interim financial information.  We have reviewed, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the unaudited interim financial information of
Cheetah Consulting, Inc.  as of June 30, 2008 and for the three-month and six-month periods ending
June 30, 2008 and 2007, and have issued our report thereon dated August 7, 2008.  With respect to the Form 10-Q of
Cheetah Consulting, Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of said report. As indicated in such report, because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that unaudited information. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.   Randall N. Drake, CPA, PA Randall N. Drake, CPA, PA  Clearwater, Florida  August 13, 2008
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-73966)pertaining to the Fifth Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option Plan, the djOrthopedics, Inc. 2001 Omnibus Plan, the dj Orthopedics, Inc. Employee StockPurchase Plan, and the dj Orthopedics, Inc. 2001 Non-Employee Directors’ StockOption Plan of dj Orthopedics, Inc.; in the Registration Statement onForm S-3 (No. 333-74998) and related Prospectus of dj Orthopedics,Inc. for the registration of its 12 5/8% Senior Subordinated Notes; and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No. 333-111465 and No. 333-112943) pertaining to the registration ofshares of dj Orthopedics, Inc. common stock, of our report dated January20, 2004, except for Note 14, as to which the date is February 24, 2004, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of djOrthopedics, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2003.

 

 
|   | /s/ ERNST  & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|----------------------------|

 

 

San Diego, California

March 10, 2004
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Enterprise Acquisition Corp.  (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Daniel C. Staton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: (1) The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Daniel C. Staton Daniel C. Staton President and Chief Executive Officer November 5, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2225 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2225

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable 
     credit against tax for landlords of veterans receiving rental 
    assistance under the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2019

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable 
     credit against tax for landlords of veterans receiving rental 
    assistance under the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program.

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

SECTION 1. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR LANDLORDS OF VETERANS RECEIVING RENTAL 
              ASSISTANCE UNDER THE VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORTED HOUSING 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
section 36B the following new section:

``SEC. 36C. LANDLORDS OF VETERANS RECEIVING RENTAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORTED HOUSING PROGRAM.

    ``In the case of a person who is an owner of a dwelling unit that 
is occupied by a veteran on whose behalf rental assistance is provided 
under section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, there 
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle 
for the taxable year an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of 
such rental assistance received by such person for such taxable 
year.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by 
        inserting ``36C,'' after ``36B,''.
            (2) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
        amended by inserting ``36C,'' after ``36B,''.
            (3) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
        subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 36B 
        the following new item:

``Sec. 36C. Landlords of veterans receiving rental assistance under the 
                            Veterans Affairs Supported Housing 
                            program.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana et al., Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant American International Group, Inc., Appellants, v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Respondent.

Decided March 30, 2010

Certification of a question by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
Exhibit
      32.1




SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION (CEO)




CHINA
      AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, 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 China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hanlin
      Chen, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and President 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:




(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 Company.




Date:
      April 2, 2007




/s/
                Hanlin ChenHanlin
                ChenChief
                Executive Officer, Chairman and
                President
145 So. 146

#### Ex parte FAVORS.

7 Div. 156.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1932.

B. B. Rainey, of Gadsden, for appellant.

*676E. G. Pilcher and Goodhue & Lusk, all of Gadsden, for appellee.

BOULDIN, J.

On December 29, 1930, Mary Estelle Favors obtained a decree of divorce from her husband, George W. Favors.

On January 14, 1931, within thirty days after the rendition of the decree of divorce, the court rendering the decree, did, on application of complainant in whose favor the decree had been granted, enter a decree or order vacating the decree of divorce and dismissing the bill out of court.

By the present proceeding, original mandamus in this court, the husband seeks to have this latter order or decree vacated and set aside.

The theory of the petitioner is that the decree of divorce was rendered in vacation as defined by Code, § 6667, and that the court was without jurisdiction or authority to vacate the same except upon application filed by the second day of the next ensuing term under Chancery Rule 78.

It is sufficient to say that Code, § 6667, has no application to equity proceedings; Code, §. 6636, governs. By that section the court is always open for equity business, and decrees become final after thirty days.

During this thirty-day period the cause is within the breast of the court, with full power to vacate the decree on application or ex mero motu. Rule 78 no longer has application to the matters here presented. Ex parte Howard (Howard v. Ridgeway) (Ala. Sup.) 142 So. 403; 1 Gibson v. Farmers’ Bank of Luverne, 218 Ala. 554, 119 So. 664; Anderson v. Steiner, 217 Ala. 85, 115 So. 4; Chilton v. Gurganus, 218 Ala. 145, 117 So. 655.

Mandamus denied: ■

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

1

 Ante, p. 106.
#### Javondi Pender, Appellant, v Lasalle Bus Service, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted October 24, 2011;

decided December 15, 2011

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 83123(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division entered in this proceeding commenced in the Civil Court of the City of New York (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
144 So. 18

#### PRYOR et al. v. LIMESTONE COUNTY.

8 Div. 390.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 6, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1932.

See, also, 222 Ala. 621, 134 So. 17.

E. W. Godbey, of Decatur, for appellants.

R. B. Patton, of Athens, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C. J.

In arguing this case to the jury, counsel for appellee said: “Gentlemen, these rich little children have no complaint against Limestone County; by taking this land the county has made them richer.” This argument was highly improper, and, notwithstanding the trial court sustained appellants’ objection to same, and instructed the jury not to consider said argument, it is of that character which is so-poisonous and improper as to be almost immune from eradication. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 212 Ala. 212, 102 So. 130; Standridge v. Martin, 203 Ala. 486, 84 So. 226; American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid, 216 Ala. 479, 113 So. 507; Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell, 221 Ala. 225, 128 So. 389, 393, and cases there cited.

The trial court erred in not granting the ■motion for a new trial on 'account of this improper argument.

Charges 1 and 2, given at the request of the appellee, were in effect approved upon the former appeal of this case. Pryor v. Limestone County, 222 Ala. 621, 134 So. 17.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
#### In re Nathaniel PITTS, Petitioner.

No. 13-3479.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Oct. 24, 2013.

Opinion filed: Nov. 19, 2013.

Nathaniel Pitts, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.

Mark B. Dubnoff, Esq., Peter F. Schenck, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Nathaniel Pitts is a federal inmate seeking mandamus relief concerning certain pro se motions filed in his criminal case. In brief summary, at the conclusion of his criminal proceedings, Pitts filed a pro se motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. In October 2012, after his direct criminal appeal concluded, Pitts filed a pro se motion invoking Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to reopen the District Court’s denial of his pro se motion for reconsideration. In July 2013, Pitts filed a pro se motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. About one month later, Pitts filed this mandamus petition, alleging that undue delay has occurred, and asking us to compel the District Court to adjudicate the pending motions in his criminal case.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. *See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,*418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To justify such a remedy, a petitioner must show that he has (i) no other adequate means of obtaining the desired relief and (ii) a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. See *Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc.,*975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir.1992) (citing *Kerr v. United States District Court,*426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). It is well-settled that the manner in which a district court disposes of the cases on its docket is committed to its sound discretion. *In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation,*685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir.1982). Some delays, however, are so intolerable as to warrant appellate intervention. *See Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996).

*163In Pitts’s case, we conclude that the delay does not rise to the level of a denial of due process or a failure by the District Court to exercise jurisdiction. *See Madden, id.*Since the date of his mandamus filing, the Government has filed a response to Pitts’s motions seeking summary judgment and other relief under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pitts’s reply to the Government’s response was filed on September 6, 2018. On the basis of these facts, we cannot conclude that Pitts’s situation is in any way extraordinary or that he has shown a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief. We are confident that the District Court will rule on the pending motions without undue delay.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
ex4c.htm





 






STERILITE SOLUTIONS, CORP.







TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE


100,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 EACH


COMMON STOCK







THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ________________________________________ IS THE OWNER OF _________________________________________________________________________ FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE ABOVE CORPORATION TRANSFERABLE ONLY ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF IN PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED WITNESS, THE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND THE SIGNATURES OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.







DATED







 







 


SECRETARY                                                                                     PRESIDENT
4

APPENDIX B
5

LedgerX Fee Schedule

Trading Fees

Day-Ahead Bitcoin Minis Swap

Fees: $0.05/contract. 1 contract = 0.01 BTC

Bitcoin Mini Futures

Fees: $0.05/contract. 1 contract = 0.01 BTC

Bitcoin Mini Options

Fees: $0.15/contract. 1 contract = 0.01 BTC

Day-Ahead USD/ETH Deci Swaps

Fees: $0.05/contract. 1 contract = 0.1 ETH

USD/Eth Deci Options

Fees: $0.15/contract. 1 contract = 0.1 ETH

Please note, the fee can never be higher than 20% of the option premium per contract. If $0.15 is 

more than 20% of the option premium per contract, the fee will be 20% of the option premium per 

contract.

Withdrawal Fees

A withdrawal fee of 0.001 BTC will be charged to the Participant per BTC withdrawal.

A withdrawal fee of 0.0004 ETH will be charged to the Participant per ETH withdrawal.