alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012025EN.01001702.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Lüdenscheid v Christel Schriever

(Case C-444/10) (1)

(VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 5(8) - Concept of a ‘transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof’ - Transfer of the stock and fittings concomitant with the conclusion of a contract of lease of the business premises)

(2012/C 25/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

Defendant: Christel Schriever

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 5(8) 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) — Possibility for the Member States to exempt from VAT the transfer of a totality of assets — Lease for an indefinite period of the shop premises of a retail outlet together with the transfer to the lessee of ownership of the stock and shop fittings of the retail outlet — Possibility of categorising such a transaction as a ‘transfer of a totality of assets’ for the purposes of Article 5(8) of Directive 77/388/EEC.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(8) 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 meaning that there is a transfer of a totality of assets, or a part thereof, for the purposes of that provision, where the stock and fittings of a retail outlet are transferred concomitantly with the conclusion of a contract of lease, to the transferee, of the premises of that outlet for an indefinite period but terminable at short notice by either party, provided that the assets transferred are sufficient for the transferee to be able to carry on an independent economic activity on a lasting basis.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---
Jamal AUSTIN, petitioner, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 15-9117.

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.
# C_2010346EN.01004101.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM — Free (FREE)

(Case T-365/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FREE - Earlier national word mark FREE and earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2010/C 346/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Papadiamantis and A. Koliothomas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 1346/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Eidikes Ekdoseis AE

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Free SAS in the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Free SAS in the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
Armando RAMIREZ-HERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7648.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

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

###### Notice Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 70-3098]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Timothy C. Johnson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-7299. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2001. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Eric J. Leeds, 

Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01-1598 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Daryl HARMON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA;

Donald Gene Wright, petitioner, v. California.

No. 16-9449.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of Sierra Resource Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Paul W.  Andre,  Treasurer  and Chief  Financial  Officer  of the
Company,  hereby  certifies for the purpose of complying  with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; 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: June 23, 2005                      By: /s/ PAUL W. ANDRE
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Paul W. Andre
                                          Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer
                                          and Director



A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SIERRA RESOURCE  GROUP,  INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY SIERRA RESOURCE GROUP, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
II-00274

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gary Cronin <gcroninsf@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:00 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.

Gary Cronin

2210 Miguel Chavez Rd., Apt. 714

Santa Fe, NM 87505-6937
# C_2012174EN.01000601.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-419/10) (1)

1

(Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal by a Member State to recognise, in favour of a person whose driving licence was withdrawn on its territory, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)

2012/C 174/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a Member State to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence is withdrawn in its territory.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 11(4), second subparagraph, of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/126/EC of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, outside any period of prohibition on applying for a new driving licence imposed on the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State and when the condition of normal residence in the territory of the latter has been complied with, to recognise the validity of that driving licence, where the said holder has been subject, in the territory of the first Member State, to a measure withdrawing a previous driving licence.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of American  Church  Mortgage  Company
(the "Company") on Form 10K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 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 operation of
          the Company.

Dated:     March 31, 2009                   By:        /s/ Philip J. Myers
         ----------------                   -----------------------------------
                                            Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                            Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer and
                                            Principal Financial Officer)
|   | 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 theCompany. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | /s/ Robin      Smyth   |   |
|   |   | Robin      Smyth            |   |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer          |   |

----
Albert LUTTERODT, petitioner, v. EMILY LANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.

No. 17-1014.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District denied.
Barbara LANG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7599.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JUAN J. ORTIZ, SR.,

Plaintiff BelowAppellant,

v.

PAUL WARFIELD, et al.,

Defendants BelowAppellees.

§

§ No. 435, 2016

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N16A-05-001

§ 

§ 

Submitted: January 27, 2017

 Decided: March 2, 2017

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 2

nd day of March 2017, upon consideration of the parties’ brief and the 

record below, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be affirmed on 

the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated July 28, 2016. As a 

matter of law, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s 

notice of appeal, which was filed on June 1, 2016, from a Court of Common Pleas’ 

order entered on April 12, 2016 was untimely.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
Rhonda MEISNER, petitioner, v. ZYMOGENETICS, INC., et al.

No. 17-1022.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 15(a).1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-12958, No. 333-11288, No. 333-118619 and No. 333-123666 on Form S-8 and No. 333-145834 on Form F-3 of CDC Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated June 20, 2006 (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the previously issued consolidated financial statements because of correction of misstatements, and our report is dated June 29, 2007 as to the effects ofthis restatement), relating to the consolidated financial statements of China.com Inc. and its subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A Amendment No. 2 of CDC Corporationand subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 

Hong Kong 

September 9, 2008
II-00195

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Judith Misale <jmisale@truman.edu>

Friday, December 3, 2010 9:07 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.

Judith Misale

22210 Cloud Trail

Kirksville, MO 63501
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 Annual Report of Adolor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael R. Dougherty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/S/ MICHAEL R. DOUGHERTY
|Michael R. Dougherty    
|Chief Financial Officer 

March 1, 2005
# C_2009220EN.01002202.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 July 2009 — Novo Nordisk A/S v Ravimiamet

(Case C-249/09)

2009/C 220/44

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novo Nordisk AS

Applicant:

Defendant: Ravimiamet

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (as amended and supplemented) be interpreted as extending also to quotations taken from medical journals or other scientific works which are included in advertisements for medicinal products directed to persons qualified to prescribe medicines? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (as amended and supplemented) be interpreted as extending also to quotations taken from medical journals or other scientific works which are included in advertisements for medicinal products directed to persons qualified to prescribe medicines?

1

| 2. | Must Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (as amended and supplemented) be interpreted as prohibiting the publication in advertisements for medicinal products of claims which conflict with the summary of product characteristics, but not requiring that all the claims in advertisements for medicinal products must be included in the summary of product characteristics or be derivable from information in the summary? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (as amended and supplemented) be interpreted as prohibiting the publication in advertisements for medicinal products of claims which conflict with the summary of product characteristics, but not requiring that all the claims in advertisements for medicinal products must be included in the summary of product characteristics or be derivable from information in the summary?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

1

---
James Gregory CASTILLO, petitioner, v. James KEY, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.

No. 16-9346.

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.
Eric Scott BRANCH, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7825 (17A885).

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 22, 2018.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.