alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 27, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14999 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 1 4 0 2 2 - C R - D MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K E I T H M A U R I C E M C F A D D E N , a .k .a . S h in e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 27, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L eon D . W att s, appo i nt ed coun se l for K ei th M auri ce M cF adden i n thi s di re ct2

c r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e llan t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd M c F a dde n’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 26874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Mental Health Services; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National 
Advisory Council in May 2001.
    A portion of the meeting will be open and will include a roll call, 
general announcements, and discussion about consumer affairs, new 
program initiatives for the current fiscal year, the recently released 
Surgeon General's Report on youth violence, and grant findings from the 
ACCESS program, which dealt with issues related to mental health and 
homelessness. Public comments are welcome. Please communicate with the 
individual listed as contact below for guidance. If anyone needs 
special accommodations for persons with disabilities please notify the 
contact listed below.
    The meeting will also include the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of grant applications. Therefore a portion of the meeting 
will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, 
in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) and 5 U.S.C. App. 
2. &10 (d).
    A summary of the meeting and a roster of Council members may be 
obtained from Ms. Patricia Gratton, Committee Management Officer, CMS, 
Room 11C-27, Parklawn Building, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone 
(301) 443-7987.

    Committee Name: CMHS National Advisory Council.
    Meeting Date: Thursday, May 24, 2001.
    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center (at Rio), 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
    Closed: May 24, 2001, 9 a.m.-10 a.m.
    Open: May 24, 2001, 10:15 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Contact: Eileen S. Pensinger, M.Ed., Executive Secretary, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Room 17C-27, Rockville, Maryland 
20857, Telephone: (301) 443-4823 and FAX (301) 443-4865.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

    Dated: May 9, 2001.
Toian Vaughn,
Executive Secretary/Committee Management Officer Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-12096 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
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, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 3, 2013

s0327

Order 

April 3, 2013

144414

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144414

COA: 279161

Kent CC: 06-003485-FC

DENNIS LEE TOMASIK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Musser (Docket No. 145237) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. RP98-44-000 and GP98-38-000] 

                    Take notice that on May 16, 2001, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc. (Vastar) and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) (collectively referred to as the Signatory Parties) filed, for the Commission's approval a Settlement Agreement (Settlement) under Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure in the captioned dockets. A copy of the Settlement is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room and may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                 

                    Signatory Parties state that the Settlement resolves the Kansas                     *ad valorem*                     refund claims raised by El Paso against Vastar and ARCO. El Paso originally sought refunds of approximately $6.6 million from Vastar and/or ARCO. The Settlement resolves these claims, and the related defense of Vastar and ARCO, in exchange for Vastar's and ARCO's lump sum payment of $4.1 million. In addition, the Settlement will result in the full and complete release of Vastar's and ARCO's claims against its royalty owners with respect to Kansas                     *ad valorem*                     tax refunds on El Paso's system, and the termination of all related proceedings pending before the Commission as they relate to EL Paso's claims.                 

Initial comments are due June 5, 2001; relay comments are due June 15, 2001. 

Davis P. Boergers, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-13593 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the
Report) by CapSource Financial, Inc. (Registrant), I, Fred C.
Boethling, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

|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 Registrant.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to CapSource Financial, Inc. and will be retained by CapSource Financial,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| | DATE:  August 9, 2005 | By:  /s/ Fred C. Boethling                     
| | --------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
| |                       | Name: Fred C. Boethling
Chief Executive Officer

---
[967 NE2d 675, 944 NYS2d 452]

#### William I. Koch, Appellant, v Acker, Merrall & Condit Company, Respondent.

Decided March 27, 2012

*941APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hunton & Williams LLP,*New York City *(Joseph J. Saltarelli, Shawn Patrick Regan*and *Jennifer L. Cummins*of counsel), and *Irell & Manella LLP,*Newport Beach, California *(Bruce A. Wessel, John Hueston*and *Moez M. Kaba*of counsel), for appellant.

*Meister Seelig & Fein LLP,*New York City *(Stephen B. Meister, Thomas L. Friedman*and *Remy J. Stocks*of counsel), for respondent.

*Theodore Hadzi-Antich*and *Deborah J. La Fetra,*Sacramento, California, for Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of Supreme Court appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 causes of action denied. To successfully assert a claim under General Business Law § 349 (h) or § 350, *“a*plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice” *(City of New York v Smokes-Spirits.Com, Inc.,*12 NY3d 616, 621 [2009]; *see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*98 NY2d 314, 324 n 1 [2002]). Here, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded such causes of action, and the disclaimers set forth in defendant’s catalogs “do not . . . bar [plaintiffs] claims for deceptive trade practices at this stage of the proceedings, as they do not establish a defense as a matter of law” *(Goshen,*98 NY2d at 326; *see Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,*94 NY2d 330, 345 [1999]).

To the extent that the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims, it was error. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff is not an element of the statutory claim *(see Small v Lorillard Tobacco**942*Co.,*94 NY2d 43, 55 [1999], citing *Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank,*85 NY2d 20, 26 [1995]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Judge Smith taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.
# C_2020271EN.01000501.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

(Case C-581/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - General principles - Article 18 TFEU - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Applicability of EU law - Defective breast implants - Insurance against civil liability arising from the production of medical devices - Insurance contract prescribing a geographical limitation on insurance coverage)

(2020/C 271/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RB

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD SA,

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a clause, stipulated in a contract concluded between an insurance company and a manufacturer of medical devices, limiting the geographical extent of the insurance coverage against civil liability arising from those devices to harm that has occurred in the territory of a single Member State, since such a situation does not fall, as EU law currently stands, within the scope of application of EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
# C_2018123EN.01001001.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-5/18)

(2018/C 123/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law (rules governing court procedure and laws governing service in administrative procedures — Paragraph 33(1) of the Postgesetz (Law on postal services) — a universal postal service under Article 3(4) of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 (1) (the Postal Directive)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law (rules governing court procedure and laws governing service in administrative procedures — Paragraph 33(1) of the Postgesetz (Law on postal services) — a universal postal service under Article 3(4) of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 (1) (the Postal Directive)?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
  Is an undertaking which effects the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law a ‘universal service provider’, within the meaning of Article 2.13 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997, providing a universal postal service in whole or in part, and is such service exempt from tax under Article 132(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Is an undertaking which effects the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law a ‘universal service provider’, within the meaning of Article 2.13 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997, providing a universal postal service in whole or in part, and is such service exempt from tax under Article 132(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)

2

---

(1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Danny Martin, Appellant.

Submitted January 3, 2012;

decided January 5, 2012

Reported below, 88 AD3d 473.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### Leonard Eidlisz, Respondent, v New York University et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 3, 2010;

decided May 6, 2010

Motion by American Council on Education et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
# C_2019423EN.01001601.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z

(Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to price - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 - Article 11(1) and Article 15 - Producer organisation having set up an operational fund - Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price - Additional financing paid by the operational fund)

(2019/C 423/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18)

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a ‘producer organisation’, within the meaning of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruits and vegetables, purchases goods from input suppliers, supplies those goods to its partner members and obtains from them a payment not covering the purchase price, the amount that an operational fund, such as provided for in Article 15 of that regulation, pays to that producer organisation for the supply of those goods to producers is incorporated in the consideration for that supply and must be regarded as a subsidy directly linked to the price of that supply, paid for by a third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Intelligence Needs for Homeland Defense Chemical Panel will meet in closed session on June 5-6, 2001, in Las Vegas, Nevada. This Task Force will consider a broad spectrum of intelligence issues as they relate to chemical warfare issues, from early threat detection to deterrence, through response including attribution.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task Force will review and evaluate the Department's ability to evaluate the collection and analysis of target-related information and weapon unique information relative to chemical warfare issues; examine the role of HUMINT against these missions as well as the technology that the HUMINT collectors need to be equipped with; consider strategic indications and warning and tactical warning dissemination and how the two need to be merged; analyze methodology to correlate large data flows spatially, temporally and functionally; and assess the robustness of today's intelligence apparatus for coping with these challenges.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App. II), it has been determined that this Defense Science Board Task Force meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: May 10, 2001.

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-13570 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Exhibit 31(i).2





Certification of the Principal Financial Officer


Rule 13a – 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





I, Carter Peters, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, 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 officers 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:








































Date: August 12,  2010/s/ Carter PetersCarter PetersChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)