alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017338EN.01001701.xml

| 9.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/17

---

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — OCU and Others v SRB

(Case T-512/17)

(2017/C 338/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) and 37 other applicants

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are unlawful and inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are unlawful and inapplicable;

| — | order the defendant, the Single Resolution Board, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant, the Single Resolution Board, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the Banco Popular Español, S.A.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board,

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board,

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board,

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board,

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board,

Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board,

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WiTel, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Tsitron, Chief Financial Officer 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, as amended; and

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

Date:  December 23, 2009*By:  /s/ Gary Tsitron
Gary Tsitron
Chief Financial Officer

 *
# C_2020054EN.01000801.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul București — Romania) — TK v Asociația de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA

(Case C-708/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) - Making the processing of personal data legitimate - National legislation allowing video surveillance for the purposes of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals, property and valuables and for the pursuit of legitimate interests, without the data subject’s consent - Installation of a video surveillance system in the common parts of a residential building)

(2020/C 54/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TK

Defendant: Asociația de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(c) and Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which authorise the installation of a video surveillance system, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, installed in the common parts of a residential building, for the purposes of pursuing legitimate interests of ensuring the safety and protection of individuals and property, without the consent of the data subjects, if the processing of personal data carried out by means of the video surveillance system at issue fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 7(f), which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Private First Class Alonzo R. SANKEY, SSN [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Army, Appellant.

CM 437601.

U. S. Army Court of Military Review.

22 Dec. 1978.

Colonel Edward S. Adamkewicz, Jr., JAGC, Major Benjamin A. Sims, JAGG, and Major Carlos A. Vallecillo, JAGC, were on the pleadings for appellant.

Counsel for appellee did not file pleadings.

Before JONES, DeFORD and LEWIS, Appellate Military Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, of assault and communication of a threat in violation of Articles 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 928 and 934. His approved sentence included a bad-conduct discharge (suspended until 25 April 1979 with provision for automatic remission).

On appeal, counsel has not alleged that any errors were committed in the pretrial, trial or post-trial processing of the case. However, our examination of the record discloses that the staff judge advocate used an abbreviated format for his post-trial review. It appears that the review was patterned on the concurring opinion in *United States v. Morrison,*3 M.J. 408 (C.M.A.1977).1

The requirements for the staff judge advocate’s post-trial review are essentially set forth in paragraphs 85b and c of the Manual.2 Further, those long standing requirements have been illustrated in such cases as *United States v. Fields,*9 U.S.C.M.A. 70, 25 C.M.R. 332 (1958); *United States*v. *Grice,*8 U.S.C.M.A. 166, 23 C.M.R. 390 (1957). Here the review failed to delineate the convening authority’s responsibility nor did it advise *791him of the standard under which he was to consider the staff judge advocate’s opinion.

Counsel for the appellant during the post-trial processing did not submit any comments to correct or challenge any matter which he may have deemed to be erroneous, misleading or inadequate.3 We do not believe the error here rises to the level that it should be considered a manifest miscarriage of justice.4 Accordingly, the failure of the defense counsel to point out the deficiencies waived the error.

The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed.

1

. Chief Judge Fletcher’s views concerning the requirements of Article 61, 10 U.S.C. § 861 may become the law in a future case. Until that time, the cited requirements set forth in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), and judicial interpretation of those requirements must be followed.

2

. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition).

3

. *United States v. Goode,*1 M.J. 3 (C.M.A. 1975); *United States v. Myhrberg,*2 M.J. 534 (A.C.M.R. 1976).

4

. See Note 10, *United States v. Myhrberg, supra.*
Exhibit 32.2




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CFO) 1350




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/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Jie Li, Chief Financial 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:




(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: June 24, 2011





By:
/s/ Jie LiJie LiChief Financial Officer
#### COUNTY OF CARTERET v. CURTIS L. LONG; RICHARD RICHARDSON and wife, ARLETHA RICHARDSON; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA (LIENOR)

No. 87A98

(Filed 6 November 1998)

Taxation § 208 (NCI4th)— state tax lien — priority over ad valorem tax lien

State tax liens are superior to local ad valorem tax liens when they are docketed in the office of the county clerk of court prior to the date the ad valorem tax liens are perfected by operation of law.

Appeal by defendant-State pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 128 N.C. App. 477, 495 S.E.2d 391 (1998), affirming a judgment for plaintiff entered by Waddell, J., on 26 September 1996 in District, Carteret County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 October 1998.

*Bevin W. Wall for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by George W. Boylan, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the defendant-appellant State of North Carolina.*

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Judge Greene.

REVERSED.

Justice Wynn did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Case 1:07-cv-05862-RJH     Document 20      Filed 08/13/2007     Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32.2














CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of Great Spirits, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James
Hyde, 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:





(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: February
12,
2008                         
By:   /s/ James 
Hyde
 James  Hyde
 Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Shore Development Partners, Respondent, v Board of Assessors et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 14, 2012;

decided April 3, 2012

Reported below, 82 AD3d 988.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders and judgments sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution.
EXHIBIT 5.1

[Letterhead of Dorsey
& Whitney LLP]

United Financial Corp.120
First Avenue NorthGreat Falls, Montana 59403

| | Re: |  | Registration
Statement on Form S-8
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We
have acted as counsel to United Financial Corp., a Minnesota corporation (the
Company), and have advised the Company in connection with a registration
statement on Form S-8 relating to the sale or issuance by the Company from time to time of
up to 60,000 shares (the Shares) of common stock, no par value, of the Company
(Common Stock) issuable under the 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Stock Option
Plan (the Plan).

We
have examined such documents and have reviewed such questions of law as we have considered
necessary and appropriate for the purposes of our opinion set forth below.

In
rendering our opinion set forth below, we have assumed the authenticity of all documents
submitted to us as originals, the genuineness of all signatures and the conformity to
authentic originals of all documents submitted to us as copies. We have also assumed the
legal capacity for all purposes relevant hereto of all natural persons and, with respect
to all parties to agreements or instruments relevant hereto other than the Company, that
such parties had the requisite power and authority (corporate or otherwise) to execute,
deliver and perform such agreements or instruments, that such agreements or instruments
have been duly authorized by all requisite action (corporate or otherwise), executed and
delivered by such parties and that such agreements or instruments are the valid, binding
and enforceable obligations of such parties. As to questions of fact material to our
opinion, we have relied upon certificates of officers of the Company and of public
officials.

Based
on the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares have been duly authorized and,
upon issuance, delivery and payment therefor in accordance with the terms of the Plan, and
any relevant agreements thereunder, will be validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

Our
opinions expressed above are limited to the laws of the State of Minnesota.

We
hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the registration statement
on Form S-8 of the Company relating to the Shares.

Dated: October 7, 2005

| | Very truly yours,/s/ Dorsey & Whitney LLP
| | -----------------------------------------

JWM

---
S TATE ’ S A DDITIONAL C ITATIONS P AGE 1 OF 3 IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

Adan Flores v. The State of Texas

NO. 04

- 14 -00915- CR

Trial Court No

. 2014CRS000311-D1

STATE ’ S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL CITATIONS

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES THE STATE OF TEXAS, and respectfully moves the Court

to permit the filing of the attached additional citations and commentary in support

of the State ’ s Brief. Although Local Rule 8 .3 permits the filing of additional

citations and succinct commentary without leave of the Court, and the attached

document consists only of citations and commentary, it totals 25 pages and 5,449

words due to the sheer number of cases summarized: there are fifteen fully

summarized cases (for and against the State ’ s position), two tables of further

citations, and about a page and a half of summarizing commentary

. Therefore, out

of an abundance of caution, the State requests leave to file the attached document

as if it was a supplemental brief under Local Rule 8.4. ACCEPTED

04-14-00915-cr

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

8/31/2015 4:49:53 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKS TATE ’ S A DDITIONAL C ITATIONS P AGE 2 OF 3 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays t he Court grant

leave to file the attached document.

Respectfully submitted,

ISIDRO R. ALANIZ

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

49 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

By:___/s/__________________

David L. Reuthinger, Jr.

Assistant District Attorney

Webb County, 49 th Judicial District

1110 Victoria St., Suite 401

Laredo, Texas 78040

(95 6) 523

- 4900 / (956) 523

- 5070 (Fax)

Bar No. 24053936

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES TATE ’ S A DDITIONAL C ITATIONS P AGE 3 OF 3 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

T he word count of the foregoing document is 1 48

.

Date: A ugust 31 , 2015

___ /s/

__________________ David L. Reuthinger, Jr.

Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

d ocument has been delivered to Armando Trevino

, attorney for the Appellant , via

eFileTexas e

- Service to Armando_trevinolaw@hotmail.com

Date: A ugust 31 , 2015

.

___ /s/

__________________ David L. Reuthinger, Jr.

Attorney for Appellee
<PAGE>
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the Form 10-Q of OMNI Energy Services Corp. (the
"Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I certify that 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 the
Company.

         This certification should not be deemed to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as part of the Report, except to the extent required to
satisfy 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.



                                              /s/ JAMES ECKERT
                                              --------------------------------
                                              James Eckert
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              August 14, 2002





                                       S-1
# C_2019044EN.01006301.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/63

---

Order of the General Court of 12 November 2018 — Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission

(Case T-658/17) (1)

((Action for annulment and for failure to act - Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct - OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))

(2019/C 44/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Against Child Trafficking (Nijmegen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Agstner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and C. Tritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request on the basis of Articles 263 and 265 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 3 August 2017 not to open an administrative investigation in Case OC/2017/0451 and, second, an order requiring OLAF to open an administrative investigation and, depending on the findings of that investigation, to refer the case to the national law enforcement authorities for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and/or to the institutions of the European Union for the purpose of an administrative procedure.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Stichting Against Child Trafficking shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Stichting Against Child Trafficking shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---
##### 



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-QSB of Summit Brokerage
Services, Inc. (the Company), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Marshall T. Leeds, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and

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

|                                                                              |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Marshall T. Leeds

Marshall T. Leeds
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

Dated: August 14, 2003





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

20
AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF EMPLOYMENT



 Exhibit 10.1 

 

 

 HD Supply 
 Global Support
Center 
 Joe DeAngelo, CEO 
 3100 Cumberland Blvd.,
Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30339 
 t 770.852.9001 

September 10, 2010 
 John Stegeman 

938 Crescent River Pass 
 Suwanee, GA 30024 

Dear John: 
 This letter amends the terms and conditions set forth
in your offer letter dated March 15, 2010 and last signed March 27, 2010. 
 Effective September 17, 2010, in your role as Executive
President of HD Supply, you will serve as President of HD Supply Construction Supply (dba White Cap Construction Supply). You will continue to provide advisory services for the following HD Supply lines of business: Waterworks, Electrical, Plumbing
and Canada. 
 Your annual salary and bonus target level will remain the same. Your bonus payout, however, will be calculated based on a combination of
White Cap Construction Supply’s performance and individual performance as determined by the Company. These changes will apply to your entire bonus opportunity for fiscal year 2010. 

The other terms of your original offer letter will remain unchanged. 

Sincerely 
  

	
	




	Joe DeAngelo
	Chief Executive Officer

 I agree to, and accept, this amendment to my HD Supply
offer letter dated March 15, 2010. 
  

					
	
                 


                                         
   

	 		  	        9/10/10            
	                                
        John Stegeman	 		  	              Date
**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-QSB for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) of Watchtower, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Yisroel
      Guttfreund, the President and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and Director
      of
      the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
      The
      Report 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 Registrant.





Date:
      November 12, 2007





Signature:
            /s/
                Yisroel Guttfreund


Name:
            Yisroel
                GuttfreundTitle:
            President
                and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and Director(Principal
                Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.