alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012133EN.01000202.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA, European Commission

(Case C-506/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Remission of import duties - Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries - Fraud committed by an employee of the company liable)

2012/C 133/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA (represented by: M. López Garrido, advogada), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission, by which that court annulled Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 informing the Portuguese authorities that the remission of import duties for the applicant was not justified in relation to a certain amount and that import duties could not be reimbursed to it in relation to another amount since the fact that the applicant was unaware that one of its employees was acting fraudulently did not constitute a special situation which may justify the remission and reimbursement of import duties to it.

Transnáutica

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

1

---
II-01193

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mark Oldland <clowndog 1 @juno.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 5:30 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Mark Oldland

13048 Twin Star Ln.

Grass Valley, CA 95949
EXHIBIT 2

        CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
        TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION


        The undersigned, being the President and Assistant 
Secretary of Etec Systems, Inc., certify that the following 
amendment to the Eighth Amended and Restated Articles of 
Incorporation of Etec Systems, Inc., was approved by a vote 
of the stockholders of Etec Systems, Inc. on December 2, 
1997, representing a majority of the shares entitled to vote 
thereon, in accordance with Sections 78.385, 78.390 and 
78.403 General Corporation Law of the State of Nevada, being

                (i) voting together as one class, 19,225,636 
shares of the total of 21,875,934 shares of Common 
Stock outstanding and entitled to vote.

        The amendment, as approved, amends and restates the 
first paragraph of Article Fourth of the Eighth Amended and 
Restated Articles of Incorporation to read as follows:

                "FOURTH:  The total number of shares of stock 
which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 
seventy million (70,000,000) shares.  Of said shares, 
sixty million (60,000,000) shares shall be common 
stock ("Common Stock") with a par value of $0.01 per 
share and ten million (10,000,000) shares shall be 
preferred stock ("Preferred Stock") with a par value 
of $0.01 per share."

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have 
executed this certificate this 22nd day of December, 1997.



                                              /s/ Stephen E. Cooper
                                               Stephen E. Cooper
                                               President


                                             /s/ Saul E. Arnold
                                               Saul E. Arnold 
                                               Assistant Secretary
Ramon Serrud SIRIAS, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-6225.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        131


        <NAME>      Fidelity Latin America Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

677,615


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

817,989


<RECEIVABLES>

16,834


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

834,823


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

8,819


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

17,462


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

26,281


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

781,226


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

52,116


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

44,301


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

8,496


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(121,521)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

140,341


<NET-ASSETS>

808,542


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

18,356


<INTEREST-INCOME>

3,990


<OTHER-INCOME>

(810)


<EXPENSES-NET>

11,182


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

10,354


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

65,035


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

64,920


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

140,309


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

9,459


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

43,053


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

35,963


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

724


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

250,653


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

8,573


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

(187,528)


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

6,464


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

11,256


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

867,983


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

12.590


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .200


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

2.920


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .230


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

0


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

15.510


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

130


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23


             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to
the incorporation of our reports included or incorporated by
reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously
filed Registration Statements, File Nos. 33-24182,33-24183, 33-
51899, 33-28995, 33-37454, 33-39695, 33-56637, 333-03657,
333-73161, 333-73163, 333-73169, 333-85925, and 333-42058


                              /s/Arthur Andersen LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio              Arthur Andersen LLP
December 15, 2000
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 





$25,000.00Date: February 1, 2016


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible,
Inc., of 6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay to the order of Lorne Willment (“Lender”),
whose address is #532 - 15216 North Bluff Rd., White Rock, B.C. V4B 0A7, or such other
place as the Lender may designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00),
together with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as follows: The entire principal
and interest amount shall be repaid on or before May 17, 2016. As payment for the loan the company agrees to give 250,000 shares
of Skinvisible, Inc at a deemed value of $0.02 per share.


 


 


All or any part of the aforesaid principal
sum may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty.


 


Upon written request by Lender, the principal of this loan may be
converted to common shares of Skinvisible, Inc. at the price of $0.02 per share plus 1⁄2 warrant at any time up until July
25, 2016. Warrants shall be issued at $0.02 per share and may be converted equal to 1 share for every 2 warrants issued and shall
expire 1 year from conversion of the loan conversion date.


 


This note is made and executed under, and is in all respects governed
by, the laws of the State of Nevada.


 


 


/s/ Terry Howlett


Terry Howlett


Skinvisible, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 February 22, 2019

Order 

Clerk

February 22, 2019

153696(82)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 153696

v COA: 325449

Gratiot CC: 14-007061-FH

DAVID ALLEN SNYDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of 

Michigan to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus 

brief submitted on February 15, 2019, is accepted for filing.
secretary 

From: Sandy Pappas [sndra@msn.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11 :53 AM 

To: secretary 

To whom it may concern, 

o7-7 

ax······.· 

Page 1 of 1 

Received CFTC 

~9f~d~ Section Jy'!jfJt 

I am writing to you over the concern I have for the current practices in both block trading and lack of regulation on 

the electronic platforms. As a floor broker on the former New York Board of Trade, we were bound by many 

regulations that kept corruption at a minimum and allowed for functional and stable markets. Since the 

introduction of electronic markets, volatility has climbed to levels we have never seen before. We have lost 

liquidity that specialists and local traders used to provide. The synergy between these traders and the 

commercial clients to which these markets were established has all been oblitered. I am deeply concerned for the 

commercial clients in particular. The rules that were estblished in the open-outcry pits that were meant to protect 

these clients are non-existent on the electronic platforms. Furthermore, the definition for block trades are an 

unual amount above and beyond want is normal for a market. Some of these platforms are setting very low 

volume requirements for these particular trades. This also is destructive to liquidity. We need to build trust in the 

markets again across the board. My opinion is to adopt and apply much of the rules that applied to the openoutcry system. Keep in mind, also, the exchanges in the past have been non-profit entities that looked out for the 

market participants. They are now largely public companies answering to board member and stock holders. 

Sincerely, 

Sandra Pappas President, 

Citrus Trading Assoc. 

10/29/2008 

-.. 

. <''") 

""'-~'"' ~ 1 t c-·o,~i -
No. 697.

#### Mason et al. *v.*Texas Company.

C. A. 1st Cir,

*Hardy K. Maclay*for peti*916tioners.

*915Certiorari denied.

*916
      *Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Morison, Samuel D. Slade, Leavenworth Colby*and *Cecelia H. Goetz*for respondent.
# C_2010288EN.01001201.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Zafra Marroquineros SL

(Case C-254/09 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA - Opposition by the proprietor of inter alia the Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and national marks CK - Opposition rejected)

(2010/C 288/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent), Zafra Marroquineros SL (represented by: J.E. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 in Case T 185/07 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, SL dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 314/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Zafra Marroquineros, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal

| 2. | Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.

---
# C_2010346EN.01001902.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV

(Case C-423/09) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Dried vegetables (garlic bulbs) from which not all moisture has been removed)

2010/C 346/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: X BV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Tariff classification of dried vegetables (garlic bulbs), from which not all of the moisture has been removed and which are imported in a chilled state

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that garlic which has undergone an intensive drying process in accordance with a specific treatment as a result of which all, or almost all, of the moisture in the product is removed comes under tariff subheading 0712 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, but that partially dried garlic which retains the properties and characteristics of fresh garlic comes under tariff subheading 0703 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
Fiaz AFZAL, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-480.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
H. Res. 1545 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 23, 2010. 

Whereas research is the mechanism by which humankind 

achieves innovation and progress; 

Whereas in order for the United States to maintain a leadership role in the world, citizens must be well educated to 

harbor the world’s best scientists, engineers, and researchers in all fields of study; 

Whereas postdoctoral scholars (postdocs) make up one of the 

most substantial driving forces for innovation and research; 

Whereas the base of available knowledge is increasing exponentially; 

Whereas given such rapid rates of knowledge expansion, increasing levels of training and education are required beyond the average undergraduate level and even beyond 

graduate study levels to generate the next generations of 

innovators in every field of study; 

Whereas postdocs conduct work and studies in a complex 

transition period while being both trainees and paid professionals; and 

Whereas the week beginning on the third Monday in September would be an appropriate week to designate as 
2 

•HRES 1545 EH 

‘‘National Postdoc Appreciation Week’’: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Postdoc 

Appreciation Week’’; 

(2) recognizes the accomplishments and contributions postdocs make to relevant departments, institutions, fields, and communities around the United States 

and the world; 

(3) recognizes the career development and other 

professional needs of postdocs in every field of study; 

and 

(4) encourages the improvement of training and career opportunities in various research fields at all levels 

of training and stages of all research careers. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32

                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 on Form 10-K of Marvel  Enterprises,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the year  ended on  December  31,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, Allen
S.  Lipson and Kenneth P. West,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial
Officer,  respectively, 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Allen S. Lipson
-----------------------------------------
Allen S. Lipson
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2004


/s/ Kenneth P. West
------------------------------
Kenneth P. West
Chief Financial Officer
March 11, 2004


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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0656. POPE et al. v. EADS et al.

Thomas W. Eads, Daryl M. Evans, Vivian Asbell, John W. Smith, and Virginia

Herrick filed this action against Butts County, Butts County Sheriff Joseph Eugene

Pope, the sheriff’s office, and three deputies (collectively the “County Defendants”),

as well as an informant in a criminal investigation. The plaintiffs alleged that the

defendants conspired to have them unlawfully arrested, imprisoned, and prosecuted

for gambling and to drive them out of the Texas Hold’Em Tournament business. The

County Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on various grounds,

including official and sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion, finding

that the County Defendants were not entitled to official immunity. The County

Defendantsfiled this direct appeal, arguing that official and sovereign immunity bars

the plaintiffs’ claims.

On March 25, 2016, after the opening briefs were filed in this case, the

Supreme Court of Georgia issued an opinion holding that the collateral order

doctrine, which provided a right of direct appeal from certain interlocutory rulings,

no longer applies to cases of sovereign, official, qualified, or other immunity. Rivera

v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770, 778 n. 7 (784 SE2d 775) (2016). “Such a judicial

determination presumptively applies retroactively to all cases in the ‘pipeline’ . . . .”

Murphy v. Murphy, 295 Ga. 376, 379 (761 SE2d 53) (2014) (citation omitted). Thus,

the County Defendants in this case are required to follow the interlocutory appeal

procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to obtain immediate appellate review of their

immunity arguments. Because the County Defendants failed to follow the required

June 30, 2016
appellate procedure, their appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/30/2016
Brenda Ford WHITE, petitioner, v. O.L. MATTHEWS, et al.

No. 16-6089.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5326.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.