alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011204EN.01000801.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-441/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses)

2011/C 204/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Beaupère-Manokha, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
Niare Quenette LYTE, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-9260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District denied.
# CE2011004EN.01006501.xml

| 7.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 4/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 4/65

---

Thursday 25 March 2010Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors - Mr Milan Martin Cvikl

P7_TA(2010)0074

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Milan Martin Cvikl as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0022/2010 – 2010/0810(NLE))

2011/C 4 E/13

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0022/2010),

having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0046/2010),

| A. | whereas Milan Martin Cvikl fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Milan Martin Cvikl fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Milan Martin Cvikl as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Milan Martin Cvikl as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
Christopher LESSNER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7558.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-O0051

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daniel Ortiz <danielortizperez@yahoo.com>

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:55 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.

Daniel Ortiz

1301 E. Ports O’Call Dr. Apt. 1W

Palatine, IL Zip Code
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60665

Summary Calendar

 

MILTON MORRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(97-CV-141-BRS)

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

October 14, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Milton Morris appeals the district court’s

judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of

disability benefits. Morris contends that the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) did not apply the proper legal standards in evaluating

his claim. Specifically, Morris asserts that the ALJ erred in

finding that he was not disabled without considering or referring

to lay testimony that corroborated a “retrospective” diagnosis of

post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
2

There is no medical opinion that Morris’s impairment relates

back to the insured period. Thus, there has been no “retrospective

diagnosis.” See Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998)

(defining the term “retrospective diagnosis”). As there is thus no

retrospective diagnosis to corroborate, the ALJ did not err in

declining to consider the lay testimony. Cf. Likes v. Callahan,

112 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that lay testimony was

relevant to corroborate retrospective diagnosis of PTSD).

Morris also argues that the ALJ failed to consult a medical

advisor, pursuant to Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-20, from which

to infer the onset date of his disability. Morris did not raise

this issue before Appeals Council and did not produce any medical

evidence or opinion from which an onset date of disability during

the relevant period could have been inferred. Thus, SSR 83-20 is

inapplicable, and the ALJ was not required to consult a medical

advisor. See SSR 83-20.

Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the decision

is supported by substantial evidence and that the proper legal

standards were used in evaluating the evidence. See Anthony v.

Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009312EN.01002201.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2009 — Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

(Case C-397/09)

2009/C 312/36

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (1) — the EU interest and royalties directive — preclude a provision under which loan interest paid by a company of one Member State to an associated company of another Member State is added to the basis of assessment to trade tax for the first company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (1) — the EU interest and royalties directive — preclude a provision under which loan interest paid by a company of one Member State to an associated company of another Member State is added to the basis of assessment to trade tax for the first company?

1

| 2. | If so, is Article 1(10) of Directive 2003/49 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the option of not applying the directive even where the conditions set out in Article 3(b) in relation to the existence of an associated company have not yet been maintained for an uninterrupted period of at least two years at the time of payment of the interest?
  Can the Member States rely, in respect of the paying company, directly on Article 1(10) of the directive in those circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, is Article 1(10) of Directive 2003/49 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the option of not applying the directive even where the conditions set out in Article 3(b) in relation to the existence of an associated company have not yet been maintained for an uninterrupted period of at least two years at the time of payment of the interest?

Can the Member States rely, in respect of the paying company, directly on Article 1(10) of the directive in those circumstances?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49.

1

---
# C_2009205EN.01002002.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/20

---

Action brought on 9 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic

(Case C-207/09)

2009/C 205/35

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and A. Tokár, Agents, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by using the services of organisations which are not recognised within the meaning of Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 94/57/EC (1) for the purposes of undertaking inspections and surveys provided for in Article 3 of the Directive, the Slovak Republic failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that article; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by using the services of organisations which are not recognised within the meaning of Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 94/57/EC (1) for the purposes of undertaking inspections and surveys provided for in Article 3 of the Directive, the Slovak Republic failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that article;

1

| — | order Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Slovak Republic used the services of organisations which are not recognised as classification societies within the meaning of Directive 94/57/EC and, according to the Commission’s information, failed to terminate the authorisation given to such organisations. Moreover, since the Slovak Republic has failed to create an appropriate legislative framework to prevent any future authorisation of organisations which are not recognised as classification societies, there is a danger that similar cases of incorrect application of Directive 94/57/EC, such as that forming the subject matter of this action, will be repeated.

---

(1)  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ 1994 L 319, p. 20).

1

---
# C_2011355EN.01001602.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Poloplast v OHIM — Polypipe (P)

(Case T-189/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark P - Earlier figurative Community marks P and P POLYPIPE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 355/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: G. Bruckmüller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Polypipe Ltd (Edlington, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially K.E. Gilbert and M.H. Blair, Solicitors, subsequently K.E. Gilbert, M.H. Blair and S.S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 80/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Polypipe Ltd and Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Polypipe Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Poloplast GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Polypipe Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Scott Long, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 13, 2006



/s/ Scott LongScott Long Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,950
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          15,678
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                15,330
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,351
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,465
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,472
<LOANS>                                        988,418
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,129,756
<DEPOSITS>                                     802,099
<SHORT-TERM>                                   112,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,309
<LONG-TERM>                                    109,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,129,756
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 55,749
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,164
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   608
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                61,521
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              29,258
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,433
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,088
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      195
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 19,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,456
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,305
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,305
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.64
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,832
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,019
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,348
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,474
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      113
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,562
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,562
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,512
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the 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, 2011
1037.

#### Boyd *v.*The State.

Indictment for burglary, from Terrell superior court — Judge Worrill. February 8, 1908.

Submitted March 31,

Decided April 22, 1908.

*21. C. Edwards,*for plaintiff in error.

*J.*A.- *Laing, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold, J. B. Ridley,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. Where an indictment for burglary alleges, as the purpose of the breaking, the intent to commit a larceny, no description, value, or ownership of any goods intended to be stolen need be alleged. *Tarver*v. *State,*95 *Ga.*223 (21 S. E. 381) ; *Kidd*v. *State,*101 *Ga.*528 (28 S. E. 990) ; *Lanier*v. *State,*76 *Ga.*304; *Berry*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*825 (53 S. E. 616).

2. Where one person rents a house and uses it as a dwelling, but allows a room therein to be occupied by a boarder or lodger, and this room is burglarized, the ownership of the house, in an indictment for burglary, may be alleged either in the general or in the special occupant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 27,
2008 (the 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 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 Form 10-K.
 /s/ Alfred H. DrewesAlfred H. DrewesSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 20, 2009