alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011347EN.01000501.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria)) — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Landeshauptmann von Wien

(Case C-382/10) (1)

1

(Industrial Policy - Food hygiene - Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 - Self-service retail of bread and bakery products)

2011/C 347/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth

Applicants:

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Interpretation of paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1) — Protection of foodstuffs against contamination — Self-service retail of bread and bakery products — Administrative decision by a Member State ordering the installation of a technical device preventing customers from replacing goods after having touched them by hand

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, with regard to containers used for self-service retail of bread and bakery products, the fact that a potential purchaser could conceivably have touched the foodstuffs offered for sale by hand or sneezed on them does not make it possible, on that basis alone, to hold that those foodstuffs were not protected against any contamination likely to render them unfit for human consumption, injurious to health or contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect them to be consumed in that state.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
II-00812

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jean Waller <jeanwaller@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:09 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: 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.

Jean Waller

2701 N. Richmond St., #2

Chicago, IL 60647
Lisa PENUNURI, et al., petitioners, v. Robert REDFORD, et al.

No. 17-934.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah denied.
Leonard WOLF, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7954.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2012151EN.01000501.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Véleclair SA v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

(Case C-414/10) (1)

1

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 17(2)(b) - Taxation of a product imported from a third country - National legislation - Right to deduct VAT on importation - Condition - Actual payment of VAT by the taxable person)

2012/C 151/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Véleclair SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(b) 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) — National legislation making the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional on the actual payment of that tax by the taxable person

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2)(b) 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 must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to make the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional upon the actual prior payment of that tax by the taxable person where that taxable person is also the holder of the right to deduction.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001076914
<NAME> ITURF INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                          19,009
<SECURITIES>                                    42,917
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,589
<PP&E>                                           3,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                     518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,856
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           189
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,808
<SALES>                                         22,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,821
<CGS>                                           13,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,432)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (161)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,271)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)


</TABLE>
Susan L. VAUGHAN, petitioner, v. ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.

No. 16-1386.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         124,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,972
<PP&E>                                         410,972
<DEPRECIATION>                                 307,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,787,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          617,408
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           325
<OTHER-SE>                                    (186,129)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,787,639
<SALES>                                      1,302,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,342,176
<CGS>                                          697,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,754,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               313,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,725,345)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,726,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,726,145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.78)
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 19 , 2023

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00010

- CV

ANGELA WARNER A/N/F TO BARBARA ANN WARNER A/K/A

BARBARA WILLIAMS WARNER , Appellant s

V.

FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC. D/B/A FIDELITY NA T IONAL

TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND COMMONWEALTH LAND

TITTLE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 76521

- A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a n order signed January 3, 2 0 2 3 . The clerk’s record was

filed January 13, 2023

. No brief was filed.

On August 31, 2023

, we issued an order stating that unless appellant filed a

brief on or before October 2, 20 2 3 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without

further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant
Glen T. JONES, Jr., petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7652.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Harold H. HODGE, Jr., et ux., petitioners, v. COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND et al.

No. 16-6048.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Motion of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.

*825The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Stephen FARMER, petitioner, v. D & O CONTRACTORS, INC., et al.

No. 16-94.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**




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 Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:




The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
      "Form 10-K") 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 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




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




Date:
                April 15, 2008
            
            
            /s/
                Eddie Cheung Wai HungCheung
                Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial
                Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2018

No. 04-18-00067-CR

Tommy Luna,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CRN-000986-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first and second motions for extension of time to file the 

brief, Appellant’s brief was due on October 4, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). After the 

extended due date, Appellant filed a third motion for an extension of time to file the brief until 

October 16, 2018.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on October 16, 2018. Any 

further motion for extension of time to file the brief will be strongly disfavored.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Zifen QIAN, petitioner, v. CAROL WILSON FINE ARTS, INC.

No. 17-612.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Order entered December 31, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01147
- CV
THE URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER DALLAS AND N ORTH CENTRAL TEXAS, INC., Appellant
V. LARRY S HAWN D/B/A FIX MY PH ONE BILL, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 06156



### O RDER On November 16, 2018, we granted appellant an extension of time to pay for the appellate record and orde red appellant to file, no later than December 17, 2018, written verification it had paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk's and reporter's fees. To date, however, appellant has not complied. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file the requested veri fication no later than January 10, 2019. We caution appellant that failure to provide written verification it has paid the reporter's fee may result in the appeal being submitted without the reporter's record and failure to provide verification it has pai d the clerk's fee may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice

. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b),(c).
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40930

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO EDUARDO ACOSTA-JUAREZ, also known as Jose R. Chavez, also 

known as Mario Acosta,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1307-1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Mario Eduardo AcostaJuarez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 

767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). In 

Teran-Salas, we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based 

merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that a defendant could be 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40930 Document: 00513157908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
No. 14-40930

2

convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that 

would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 

F.3d at 458. Acosta-Juarez has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that 

Texas would prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not 

also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing 

guidelines.” Id. at 461-62.

Acosta-Juarez also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United 

States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. 

filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355). In Martinez-Lugo,782 F.3d at 204-05, we 

held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior 

conviction of a drug trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the

conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial 

activity.

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 14-40930 Document: 00513157908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
II-00721

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Crowder <pioagape@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:03 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.

Robert Crowder

5624 NW 304th Street

Ridgefield, WA 98642
Dennis G. CLAIBORNE, petitioner, v. Dr. ZHANG, et al.

No. 15-9236.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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

<ARTICLE>                               5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                             74,438
<SECURITIES>                      399,876
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  727,812
<PP&E>                          3,586,300
<DEPRECIATION>                   (181,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,151,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,655,900
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                         1,300
<COMMON>                           19,885
<OTHER-SE>                      1,435,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    5,151,212
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   30,020
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  568,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                183,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (721,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (721,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (425,718)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.022)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.022)
        

</TABLE>
Lemaricus Devall DAVIDSON, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 16-9278.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Eastern Division denied.