alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009205EN.01002701.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 June 2009 — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S

(Case C-234/09)

2009/C 205/45

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Applicant:

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 204(1)(a) with reference to Articles 92 and 96 in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 4(9) and (10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that






  a) | a customs debt arises if a transit procedure for goods which do not physically exist is initiated by mistake in the NCTS system by an authorised consignor, and as a consequence the transit procedure cannot subsequently be discharged in accordance with the rules, or that |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 204(1)(a) with reference to Articles 92 and 96 in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 4(9) and (10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that

1

a)

a customs debt arises if a transit procedure for goods which do not physically exist is initiated by mistake in the NCTS system by an authorised consignor, and as a consequence the transit procedure cannot subsequently be discharged in accordance with the rules, or that

| b) | a customs debt does not arise, since the transit procedure is presumed to apply solely to physically existing goods, so that the mistaken generation of a transit in the NCTS system for goods which do not physically exist does not lead to the imposition of customs duties? |
| --- | --- |

b)

a customs debt does not arise, since the transit procedure is presumed to apply solely to physically existing goods, so that the mistaken generation of a transit in the NCTS system for goods which do not physically exist does not lead to the imposition of customs duties?

| 2. | If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, must the concept of the ‘importation of goods’ in Article 4(10) together with the concept of ‘goods’ in Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the concept covers both physically existing goods and goods which do not physically exist? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, must the concept of the ‘importation of goods’ in Article 4(10) together with the concept of ‘goods’ in Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the concept covers both physically existing goods and goods which do not physically exist?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

---
Jason PARKER, petitioner, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.

No. 17-779.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Niku Corporation Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended January 31, 2004., as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joshua Pickus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.  that information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Niku Corporation for the fiscal periods covered by the Report.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 14, 2004 |  | /s/    JOSHUA
PICKUS   
|                      |  | Joshua Pickus          
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Niku Corporation and will be retained by Niku Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

www.cftc.gov

Open Meeting of the Commission – Tuesday, December 10, 2019 – 9:00 a.m. 

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Statements

Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Dawn DeBerry Stump

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

3. Staff Presentation: Final Rule: Amendments to Part 13 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (Public Rulemaking Procedures)

Daniel J. Davis, Office of General Counsel (OGC) 

Herminio Castro, OGC

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion / Vote

4. Staff Presentation: Proposed Rule: Capital Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap 

Participants – Reopening the Comment Period and Requesting Additional Comment

Joshua B. Sterling, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) 

Thomas J. Smith, DSIO Joshua J. Beale, DSIO 

Jennifer Bauer, DSIO Rafael Martinez, DSIO 

Paul Schlichting, OGC 

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion / Vote

5. Staff Presentation: Proposed Rule: Amendments to the Swap Clearing Requirement 

Exemption for Inter-Affiliate Swaps

Clark Hutchison, Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) 

Sarah E. Josephson, DCR Melissa D’Arcy, DCR 

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion / Vote

6. Closing Statements

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

Commissioner Dawn DeBerry Stump

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

7. Adjournment
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**     I, John D. Doherty, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 21, 2007            /s/ John D. Doherty   John D. Doherty   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010051EN.01004001.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/40

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 7 October 2009 in Case F-122/07, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-516/09 P)

2010/C 51/75

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

| — | declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever;

| — | allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance;

| — | order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-122/07. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the appellant’s request that an investigation be carried out in relation to certain events which occurred in 2001 and 2003 and an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage suffered as a result.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges that the order under appeal distorted and misrepresented the facts and misinterpreted and misapplied the obligation to give reasons for measures.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-23-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,060,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,569,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   849,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,582,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,986,000
<PP&E>                                     253,547,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             127,894,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             198,121,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       74,427,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (67,816,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               198,121,000
<SALES>                                    332,988,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           332,988,000
<CGS>                                      105,473,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              305,518,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,007,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                83,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          21,135,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (13,672,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    64,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (13,736,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (1,095,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,831,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk April 2 , 2021

162 681 ( 40 )

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

Appellee,

SC: 162681

v COA: 350981

Allegan CC: 18

- 060665

- CH

LESA WERME, also known as LESA J.

WERME,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff

Appellant

.

_______________________________________ _ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellant to file a corrected application

for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The corrected application submitted on March 18 , 2021

, is accepted for filing

.
II-00064

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dave Kraus <dkraus3 @gmail.com>

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:54 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.

Dave Kraus

7713 Florence

Darien, IL 60561
**EXHIBIT INDEX**

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant certifies that itmeets all of the requirements for the effectiveness of this Registration Statement pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933and has duly caused this Post-Effective Amendment No. 116 to the Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Boston, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the 16th day of January 2014.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this Registration Statement has been signed below by the following personsin the capacities and on the dates indicated.

POWER OF ATTORNEY
Nelson WYNN, petitioner, v. Kim HOLLAND, Warden.

No. 16-9245.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF COLORADO, petitioner, v. Wayne W. WILLIAMS, Colorado Secretary of State; and Ryan Frazier, petitioner, v. Wayne W. Williams, Colorado Secretary of State.

No. 17-1196.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
Rollie M. MITCHELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9374.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Eric M. Reuter, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Laserscope; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004    /s/ Eric M. Reuter   Eric M. Reuter Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2010024EN.01003901.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/39

---

Action brought on 25 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-478/09)

2010/C 24/68

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. La Pergola and M. Karanasou Apostopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

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

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/63/EC into domestic law expired on 31 September 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 300, 17.11.2007, p. 47

1

---