alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011319EN.01000201.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-264/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2003/54/EC - Investment contract - Bilateral agreement on the protection of investments concluded prior to accession to the European Union - Article 307 EC)

2011/C 319/02

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, F. Hoffmeister and J. Javorský, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9(e) and 20(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54/EC of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Priority access of an operator to part of the cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Infringement of the obligation to ensure non-discriminatory access for transport and distribution networks

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Justin Parker RUSSELL, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-702.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.5

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

         I, Karl R. Wyss, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
of Thermadyne Capital Corp. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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
Company.

Dated:  August 14, 2002

                                       /s/  KARL R. WYSS
                                       --------------------------------
                                       Karl R. Wyss
                                       Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                       Executive Officer of the Company
Dennis Armando ROSALES-ALVARADO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7223.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Grabel GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7090.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2011160EN.01001902.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Safariland v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)

(Case T-262/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision adopted by one of the OHIM Boards of Appeal - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 63(2), 65(6), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 160/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Safariland LLC, formerly Defense Technology Corporation of America (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Daniel and O. Haleen, and subsequently by O. Haleen, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2009 (Case R 493/2002-4 (II)), relating to opposition proceedings between Defense Technology Corporation of America and DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Safariland LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Safariland LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Scott J. Marquis, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of American Church
Mortgage Company (the “Report”); and



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.



Date: May 8, 2020



By: /s/ Scott
J. Marquis

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
Matthew JONES, petitioner, v. CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES, et al.

No. 16-9259.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Cedric B. CLERK, Jr., petitioner, v. Jay CASSADY, Warden.

No. 16-6442.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court Missouri denied.
Antonio FULLER, petitioner, v. James M. HOLLOWAY, Warden.

No. 16-6831.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Azco Mining, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pierce Carson, President &
Chief Executive Officer, 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the
      Report.

|                        |    
|----------------------- | ---
|                        |    
|Date: February 19, 2007 | By:
|                        |    
|                        |    
|                        |    
|                        |    

---
# C_2010246EN.01001101.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-354/09) (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Article 33 - Value of goods for customs purposes - Inclusion of the customs duties - Delivery term ‘Delivered Duty Paid’)

2010/C 246/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gaston Schul BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Interpretation of Article 33(1)(f) and Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value — Contract containing the term of delivery ‘Delivered Duty Paid’ concluded on the assumption that no customs duties would be payable — Amount not mentioned — Exclusion from or inclusion in the customs value

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The condition specified in Article 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, to the effect that import duties must be ‘shown separately’ from the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, is satisfied in the case where the parties to the contract have agreed that those goods are to be delivered DDP (‘Delivered Duty Paid’) and have incorporated that information in the customs declaration but, by reason of a mistake as to the preferential origin of those goods, have failed to state the amount of the import duties.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Victor C. FOURSTAR, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6110.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Greenland  Corporation  June  30,  1997  financial  statements  and is
          qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                        0000852127
<NAME>                       Greenland Corporation 

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                                         167,828
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,876
<PP&E>                                         5,364,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                 402,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,431,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          621,498
<BONDS>                                        4,689,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       18,917
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,723,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,431,718
<SALES>                                        15,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,498
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  535,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             171,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (768,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (768,770)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (768,770)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Petróleos Mexicanos, a decentralized public entity of the Federal Government of the United Mexican States (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: June 30, 2006 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/    LUIS RAMÍREZ CORZO Y
HERNÁNDEZ   
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Luis Ramírez Corzo y Hernández          
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Director General/Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: June 30, 2006 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/    JUAN JOSÉ SUÁREZ
COPPEL          
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Juan José Suárez Coppel                 
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MYERS AND COMPANY, AND A. H. MYERS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 155 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 155 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Acting Secretary of 

Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Myers and Company, and 

A. H. Myers 

(Kansas City, Mssouri) 

The complaint charges that on 88 business days during the period September 1, 

1966, through January 31, 1967, the respondents were undersegregated in amounts 

ranging up to $ 29,000. The complaint also charges that the segregation records 

maintained by the respondents did not reflect the undersegregation. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, on July 30, 1968, in Kansas City, Missouri. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16093]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Joint Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic 
Phenomena, and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice of 
Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy, Thermal-
Hydraulic Phenomena and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
will hold a joint meeting on July 9, 2001, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Monday, July 9, 2001--1:30 p.m. Until The Conclusion of Business

    The Subcommittees will discuss the proposed risk-informed revisions 
to 10 CFR 50.46 for emergency core cooling systems. The Subcommittee 
will also discuss revisions to the framework for risk-informing the 
technical requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. The purpose of this meeting 
is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittees along 
with any of their consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittees will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested 
persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Michael T. Markley (telephone 301/415-6885) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 01-16093 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# C_2009312EN.01001501.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 September 2009 — Françoise Hanssens-Ensch (administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Agenor SA) v European Community

(Case C-377/09)

2009/C 312/23

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Françoise Hanssens-Ensch (administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Agenor SA)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Community

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a liability action under Article 530 of the Belgian Companies Code, brought by an administrator in bankruptcy proceedings seeking an order that the European Community should make good the bankrupt company’s liabilities, on the ground that the Community had the de facto power to manage a commercial company and was guilty of serious misconduct in the management of that company which contributed to its bankruptcy, constitutes an action in non-contractual liability for the purposes of that provision of the Treaty?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,577,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               37,980,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   245,000
<INVENTORY>                                 72,655,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           123,854,000
<PP&E>                                     159,038,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              82,788,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             427,639,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       78,119,000
<BONDS>                                    469,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (202,907,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               427,639,000
<SALES>                                     88,831,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            88,831,000
<CGS>                                       49,863,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,863,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,332,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,335,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,081,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,311,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,770,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,770,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 17, 2009

p0610 

# Order

June 17, 2009

137871

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137871 COA: 274171 Wayne CC: 06-004417-01 LEANDER PHILLIP TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 23, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.