alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019263EN.01001001.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/10

---

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.

(Case C-22/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU - Rules of a sports association - Participation in the national championship of a Member State by an amateur athlete holding the nationality of another Member State - Different treatment on the basis of nationality - Restriction on free movement)

(2019/C 263/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi

Defendant: Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a national sports association, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which an EU citizen, who is a national of another Member State and who has resided for a number of years in the territory of the Member State where that association, in which he runs in the senior category and in an amateur capacity, is established, cannot participate in the national championships in those disciplines in the same way as nationals can, or can participate in them only ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’, without being able to progress to the final and without being eligible to be awarded the title of national champion, unless those rules are justified by objective considerations which are proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6304
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PRESTON MCRAE SMALLS, a/k/a Preston Mitchell, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:98-cr-01240-DCN) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 16, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Preston McRae Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Preston McRae Smalls appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sente nce. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Smalls , No. 2:98-cr-01240-DCN (D.S.C. filed Feb. 15, 2007 & entered Feb. 16, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2017293EN.01003602.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/36

---

Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission

(Case T-392/17)

(2017/C 293/45)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision to open an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to open an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office;

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

—

order the defendant 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle ne bis in idem. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle ne bis in idem.

ne bis in idem

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3500

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Steven Wayne Pruett, * [PUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 8, 2008 Filed: April 17, 2008

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This case is before us on remand from th e United States Supreme Court. See Pruett v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 1473 (2008), vacating and remanding 501 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2007). We are instructed to further consider this case in light of Watson v. United States , which ruled that "a person does not 'use' a fi rearm under [18 U.S.C.] § 924(c)(1)(A) when he receives it in trad e for drugs." 128 S. Ct. 579, 586 (2007). Based on Watson , we reverse Steven Wayne Pruett's 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 8 of the superseding indictment).1 The facts of this case are set fo rth in United States v. Pruett , 501 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2007), judgment vacated by 128 S. Ct. 1473 (2008). -2- A jury convicted Pruett on six criminal counts relating to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine. 1 Pruett appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the District Court erred by submitting to the jury the charge of use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). We affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Count 8 of the superseding indictment was predicated on Pruett's receipt of a firearm in exchange for methamphetamine. On appeal, Pruett argued that the term "uses" in § 924(c)(1)(A) requires something mo re than mere receipt of a firearm. We determined that Pruett's argument wa s precluded by United States v. Cannon , which held that "a person can 'use' a firearm in violation of § 924(c) by 'receiving' the firearm in a drugs for weapon exchange." 88 F.3d 1495, 1509 (8th Cir. 1996). After our opinion affirming Pruett's conviction was i ssued, the Supreme Court decided Watson

. In Watson , the Court addressed th e question of "whether a person who trades his drugs for a gun 'uses' a firearm 'during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1 )(A)." 128 S. Ct. at 581. The Court concluded that "he does not" and reversed the conviction of a defendant charged with receiving a pistol in exchange for drugs. Id. In light of Watson , Cannon is no longer good law on this point, and Pruett's convicti on based on his exchange of drugs for a gun cannot stand. We reverse the judgment of convi ction on Count 8. Because Watsondoes not affect our earlier decision affirming the District Court's judgment with respect to the other five counts on which Pru ett was convicted, we reinstate our earlier opinion, with this opinion serving only to modify our earlier opinion's discussion of Count 8-3- (primarily found in Section VI of our earlier opinion). The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________
Exhibit
10.44

    


    [English
translation for reference only]

    


    Certificate
of credit from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

    For
RMB 48 million

    


    Certificate

    


    We hereby
declare that Industrial and Commercial Bank of China officially credit RMB 48
million to Guanke (Fujian)
Electron Technological Industry Co. Ltd. on September 20, 2009. The
credit rating is AA+, while the grace period lasts for six months from the
due date at September 20, 2010. The approved credit line can be used for import
L/C issuing, import documentary credit, import advanced payment financing,
import T/T financing, export order financing, export invoice financing, domestic
factoring, and domestic L/C opening etc.

    


    Shishi
Branch, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China