alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company")  certifies
to his knowledge that:

     (1)  The  Amendment  No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
          for the year ended  December 28, 2002 (the  "Amended Form 10-K") fully
          complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Amended Form 10-K fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,  the  financial  conditions  and  results  of
          operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods referred
          to in the Amended Form 10-K.


                                                   /s/ John T. Cahill
                                                   -------------------
                                                   John T. Cahill
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   May 22, 2003

The foregoing  certification  (the  "Certification")  is being furnished  solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained  by the Company in  accordance  with Rule  12b-11(d)  of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
# C_2009233EN.01000902.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Aduo Pisaneschi v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-287/09)

2009/C 233/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aduo Pisaneschi

Applicant:

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

The Court of Justice is asked to give a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC as to whether Articles 17, 39 and 42 EC, and the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that the principle that all insurance periods must be aggregated for the purposes of entitlement to the right to benefits, and of the acquisition and maintenance of that right — a principle implemented through the adoption, by the Council, of Regulation No 1408/71 — applies in all cases where the aggregation and pro rata mechanism must be used for the purposes of recognising the right to a given benefit, with the result that account must be taken to that end both of the insurance periods completed under the legislation of each Member State, and of those completed under the social insurance scheme applicable to employees of the Community institutions.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000      JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999      SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                     199,755             1,454
<SECURITIES>                                     0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                               78,717           188,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0                 0
<INVENTORY>                                      0            12,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           487,234           232,472
<PP&E>                                     406,153            63,162
<DEPRECIATION>                             266,602            14,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           9,819,977           323,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      485,309           579,666
<BONDS>                                          0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0                 0
<PREFERRED>                                629,418                 0
<COMMON>                                11,205,716           359,900
<OTHER-SE>                                       0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             9,819,977           323,116
<SALES>                                    685,268         3,503,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           685,268         3,503,822
<CGS>                                      617,577         3,419,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,940,226           672,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,367             3,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (1,884,016)         (591,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0                 0
<CHANGES>                                        0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            (1,884,016)         (591,688)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.650)            (.240)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.650)            (.240)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to****18 U.S.C.Section 1350****(AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of****theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Charles F. Flood, Chief Executive Officer of IESICorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.                theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

 
| Dated:  March  25, 2003 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
|                         | /s/ Charles  F. Flood |   |
|                         | Charles F. Flood |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer |
Erica Artavia CAMPBELL, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-9327.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*112Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
# C_2012049EN.01001201.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV v FOD Financiën

(Case C-499/10) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Persons liable to pay tax - Third party jointly and severally liable - Warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing - Joint and several liability of the warehouse-keeper of the goods and the taxable person who owns the goods - Good faith or lack of fault or negligence of the warehouse-keeper)

2012/C 49/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV

Applicant:

Defendant: FOD Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 21(3) of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Persons liable to pay tax — Third party jointly and severally liable — National legislation holding the warehouse-keeper of the goods jointly and severally liable for payment of tax due by the taxable person who owns the goods, in warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(3) of 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as not authorising the Member States to provide that a warehouse-keeper other than a customs warehouse-keeper is jointly and severally liable for the value added tax which is owing on a supply of goods made for valuable consideration, and released from the warehouse, by the owner of the goods who is liable for the tax on those goods, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
Jermel POPE, petitioner, v. Janet PERDUE.

No. 17-7453.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Juan PEREZ-MALDONADO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7932.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Garry Edgar DEL ANGEL, petitioner v. UNITED STATES; and Pablo Pantaleon Arenas-Ortiz, petitioner, v. United States.

No. 15-9559.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11410

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-114-1-Y

September 11, 2000

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Miguel Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his

motions to suppress evidence and his m otion to exclude expert

testimony. Garcia entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the

right to appeal the district court’s denial of these motions.

Garcia argues that law enforcement officials did not have

sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of2

the vehicle in which Garcia was a passenger; he also argues that

the length of the detention was unreasonable and became a fullblown arrest without probable cause. A review of the evidence

presented indicates that the officers had reasonable suspicion to

stop the vehicle based on the tip from a previously reliable

informant and based on the officers’ surveillance which

corroborated the confidential informant’s tip. The approximately

forty-five minute detention of the vehicle was not unreasonable as

the officers “diligently pursued a means of investigation that was

likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which

time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v.

Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). The alert by the narcotics dog

then provided probable cause to search the vehicle. S ee United

States v. Zucco , 71 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1995).

Garcia argues that the district court abused its discretion in

denying his m otion to exclude Sergeant H.G. Tebay’s testimony as

unqualified under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evid ence. He

also arg ues that Sergeant Tebay’s testimony would have violated

Rule 704 which prohibits an expert from testifying concerning a

defendant’s mental state. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Garcia’s motion to exclude Sergeant Tebay’s

testimony because he was an experienced narcotics investigator who

had knowledge concerning how the drug distrib ution business

operates which would have assisted the jury. S ee United States v.3

Washington

, 44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, such

testimony would not have violated Rule 704 as the testimony could

be considered an analysis of the evidence. S ee United States v.

Speer , 30 F.3d 605, 609-10 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009256EN.01002703.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/27

---

Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring v OHIM (combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey)

(Case T-299/09)

2009/C 256/51

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gühring OHG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1;

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant’s Examination Division dated 21 July 2008, in which it refused registration of the applicant’s mark Nr. 6 703 581; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant’s Examination Division dated 21 July 2008, in which it refused registration of the applicant’s mark Nr. 6 703 581;

| — | Declare, that the trade mark applied for No. 6 703 581 complies with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1);
  in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare, that the trade mark applied for No. 6 703 581 complies with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1);

1

in the alternative,

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: a mark made up of a combination of the colours of broom yellow and silver grey for goods in Class 7 (registration application No. 6 703 581)

Community trade mark concerned

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, because the trade mark applied for has a distinctive character. In addition, infringement of procedural law, in particular of Articles 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

1

---
Andrew BARTOK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7310.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2009312EN.01003702.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/37

---

Action brought on 19 October 2009 — BSA v OHIM — Loblaws (PRÉSIDENT)

(Case T-420/09)

2009/C 312/61

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BSA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Loblaws, Inc.

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 17 August 2009 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, (Case R 1744/2008-4), |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 17 August 2009 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, (Case R 1744/2008-4),

| — | Order OHIM to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BSA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘PRÉSIDENT’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 42 — application for registration No 2 135 200

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Loblaws, Inc.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the French word mark ‘President’s Choice’ for goods in Classes 5, 30, 31 and 32 and the Community figurative mark ‘PRESIDENT’S CHOICE’ for goods in Classes 30, 31 and 32 (Community trade mark No 1 872 407)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial upholding of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of appeal as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009] and of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (1) and of the principle of the right to be heard in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1)

1

---
# C_2009256EN.01003301.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/33

---

Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava and Others v OHIM (TXAKOLI)

(Case T-341/09)

2009/C 256/59

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava (Amurrio, Spain), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Bizkaia (Leoia, Spain), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Getaria (Getaria, Spain) (represented by J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 June 2009 in Case R 197/2009-2 and allow the application for registration of ‘TXAKOLI’ as a Community trade mark (collective word mark) for Classes 33, 35, 41 and 42. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 June 2009 in Case R 197/2009-2 and allow the application for registration of ‘TXAKOLI’ as a Community trade mark (collective word mark) for Classes 33, 35, 41 and 42.

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Collective word mark ‘TXAKOLI’ (Application No 6 952 014) for goods and services in Classes 33, 35, 41 and 42.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 inasmuch as that provision is not applicable to the term ‘Txakoli’ since the latter is considered to be a traditional term by Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products. (1)

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.

1

---
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 the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Council will meet to select North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) proposals for recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

The date and time of the meeting is July 10, 2001 at 1 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Park City Marriott, 1895 Sidewinder Drive, Park City, UT, 84060. The Council Coordinator is located at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 110, Arlington, Virginia, 22203.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Smith, Council Coordinator, (703) 358-1784.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.

Dated: June 15, 2001.

K. Adams,

Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01-16041 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P