alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011030EN.01006102.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/61

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2010 — Lenz v Commission

(Case F-80/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of the costs of treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’ - Principle of non-discrimination)

2011/C 30/117

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erika Lenz (Osnabrük, Germany) (represented by: initally, V. Lenz and J. Römer, lawyers, and subsequently, V. Lenz, J. Römer and P. Birden, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2009 not to reimburse the costs of medical treatment provided by a ‘Heilpraktiker’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action of Mrs Lenz. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action of Mrs Lenz.

| 2. | Orders Mrs Lenz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Lenz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009, p. 66.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Scott J. Marquis, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for American Church Mortgage Company 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated:	April
25, 2019



By: /s/ Scott
J. Marquis

Chief Financial Officer &
Treasurer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Salma ACEVEDO, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-320.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-172302, 333-167831, 333-152230, 333-134906, 333-125456, 333-112322, 333-102769, 333-99629, 333-90778, 333-69706, 333-67332 and 333-95797) and Form S-3 (Nos.333-169513, 333-167061, 333-151837, 333-147146, 333-135015 and 333-112323) of Sequenom, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated March 8, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Sequenom,Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sequenom, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 8, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report
of Semitool, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Larry A. Viano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | (1) | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
          applicable, 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 at           the dates
and for the periods indicated.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|Dated:  December 13, 2006 |  | By: /s/Larry A. Viano
Larry A. VianoVice President and Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David RILEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-1511.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Ardic Caine FIELDS, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 16-488.

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.
II-01042

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Susan Hathaway <susanhathaway@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:50 AM

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:

It’s long past time for you to side with Main Street against Wall Street, instead of the other way around, as has become the

norlI1.

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 already

partially eviscerated Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps, and this number will

increase to more than $10 trillion in a decade, as long as you keep giving the banksters every single thing they want and

telling them it’s perfectly all right to take it from those of us who have nothing. As the head of the Financial Stability

Oversight Board,

however oxymoronic a title that may be, your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and

opaque markets. But you know that, and obviously you don’t care.

Susan Hathaway

5107 Passons Boulevard #313

Pico Rivera, CA 90660
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 13 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR R. MORALES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, BOBBIE V. WILLIAMS, ANTHONY L. THORNTON, CHARLES E. EMERY, C. PAUL ROBINSON and EDWARD D. GRAHAM,

Defendants, and SANDIA CORPORATION and SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-2029 (D.C. No. CIV-97-350-LH) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. After a trial to the court, the district court dete rmined that appellant Arthur Morales failed to prove pretext in his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 suit against his employer for allegedly retaliatory adverse employment action s. Mr. Morales appeals that judgment and also argues that the district court wa s biased in this case and that he should now be granted a jury trial. We have examined the pleadings, the briefs of the p arties, and the record on appeal. We find no basis upon which to disturb the oral findings of the district court and the judgment in this case, nor do we findevidence of judicial bias. Further, the district court acted well within its d iscretion in denying Mr. Morales’ untimely request for a jury trial. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue fo rthwith. Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
# C_2010317EN.01004801.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — AE v Commission

(Case F-79/09)

(Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Occupational sickness and accident insurance - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease - Hypersensitivity to electro-magnetic fields)

2010/C 317/84

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AE (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents, and, subsequently, J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment, first, of the decision of the appointing authority dated 15 December 2008, received on 16 January 2009, rejecting the applicant’s request that his medical condition be recognised as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and, second, so far as necessary action for annulment of the decision of 11 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Claim for EUR 12 000 damages in compensation for non-material damage suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay AE the sum of EUR 2 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay AE the sum of EUR 2 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the claims in the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the claims in the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay a quarter of the applicant’s; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay a quarter of the applicant’s;

| 4. | Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of his or her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of his or her own costs.

---
II-00276

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Stonna Shores <shoresl_s@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:54 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.

Stonna Shores

9515 Wildwood Rdg

San Antonio, TX 78250
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        51


        <NAME>      Fidelity International Growth & Income Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

946,702


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

1,042,053


<RECEIVABLES>

37,369


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

1,079,422


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

1,954


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

10,299


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

12,253


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

877,206


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

51,120


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

52,749


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

22,267


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

72,251


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

95,445


<NET-ASSETS>

1,067,169


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

20,074


<INTEREST-INCOME>

19,912


<OTHER-INCOME>

(2,023)


<EXPENSES-NET>

12,545


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

25,418


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

73,244


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

33,690


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

132,352


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

15,358


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

19,594


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

70,794


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

74,211


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

1,787


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

60,093


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

21,693


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

33,340


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

8,153


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

12,752


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

1,090,095


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

19.090


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .480


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

1.970


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .290


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .370


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

20.880


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

117


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
Edgar Javier Bello MURILLO, aka Payaso, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5924.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

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

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2912

___________

Richard King; Byrde King, *

*

Appellants, *

*

Nyetta Dienagha, a minor, by his *

parents and guardian ad litems, *

Richard and Byrde King; Derrick * Appeal from the United States

King, a minor, by his parents and * District Court for the 

guardian ad litems, Richard and * Western District of Missouri.

Byrde King; Richard King, Jr., a *

minor, by his parents and guardian * [UNPUBLISHED]

litems, Richard and Byrde King, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

City of Columbia Police Department; *

Wendy Stokes; Bryan Piester; City *

of Columbia; Chief Ernest Barbee; *

Robert Bennett; Michael Shaw; Ken *

Hammond; Shelley Jones; Lloyd *

Simons, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1998

 Filed: February 10, 1998

___________
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard and Byrde King and their children appeal from the District Court&s

1

adverse grant of summary judgment in their civil rights action against the City of

Columbia, Missouri, and several city police officers. After carefully reviewing the

record and the parties& briefs, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The Kings& motion for

appointment of counsel is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (01-080)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Space Science Advisory Committee, Structure and Evolution of the Universe Subcommittee. 

# DATES:

Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Wednesday, July 11, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

# ADDRESS:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Conference Room 7H46, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Alan Bunner, Code S, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2150. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—Associate Administrator's Program Status Report 

—Report on the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Annual State of the Theme 

—Future of Structure and Evolution of the Universe Subcommittee Membership 

—Status of Astro-E2 

—Internationalization of future x-ray missions

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitors register. 

      ( print page 33716)    
June 19, 2001.

Beth M. McCormick, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 01-15867 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
# C_2009267EN.01003102.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Criminal proceedings against R

(Case C-285/09)

2009/C 267/55

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

R

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Must Article 28cA(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision is to be refused exemption from value added tax if the supply has actually been effected, but it is established on the basis of objective factors that the vendor, a taxable person,






  (a) | knew that, by his supply, he was participating in a transaction aimed at evading VAT, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 28cA(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision is to be refused exemption from value added tax if the supply has actually been effected, but it is established on the basis of objective factors that the vendor, a taxable person,

1

(a)

knew that, by his supply, he was participating in a transaction aimed at evading VAT, or

| (b) | took actions aimed at concealing the true identity of the person to whom the goods were supplied in order to enable the latter person or a third person to evade VAT? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

took actions aimed at concealing the true identity of the person to whom the goods were supplied in order to enable the latter person or a third person to evade VAT?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tena Mayberry, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:



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:  November 14, 2012 | By: /s/ Tena Mayberry  
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         | Tena Mayberry          
|                         | Chief Executive Officer