alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 22005A0531(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 22005A0531(01)

**Agreement in the Form of an Exchange of Letters Concerning amendments to the annexes to the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products **

*
Official Journal L 137 , 31/05/2005 P. 0033 - 0047 *

Agreement in the Form of an Exchange of Letters

Concerning amendments to the annexes to the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products

A. Letter from the European Community

Brussels, 7 October 2004

Your Excellency,

With reference to the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products, I have the honour to propose to you to amend the Annexes of the Agreement as follows:

As recommended by the Joint Management Committee established under Article 14(1) of the Agreement, replace the texts of point 6 of Annex V and of footnote (1) to the Agreement with the text in Appendix A to the present letter, and replace the text of Annex VI to the Agreement, with the text in Appendix B to the present letter.

I would be obliged if you would confirm the agreement of the United States of America to such amendments to point 6 of Annex V, to footnote (1), and to Annex VI to the Agreement.

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

Enclosure: Appendix A to replace Annex V, point 6 and footnote (1) to the Agreement and Appendix B to replace Annex VI to the Agreement

[1]

For the European Community

Jaana Husu-Kallio

B. Letter from the United states of America

Brussels, 6 April 2005

Dear Madam,

I refer to your letter of 7 October 2004 containing details of the proposed Appendix A to replace Annex V, point 6 and footnote (1) and Appendix B to replace Annex VI of the Agreement of July 20 1999 between the United States of America and the European Community on the sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products.

In this regard, I have the honor to confirm the acceptability to the United States of America of the proposed amendments as recommended by the Joint Management Committee established under Article 14(1) of the Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto. It is my understanding that these amendments shall take effect on the date on which the EC notifies the US that it has completed the necessary procedures for implementing these amendments.

Please accept the assurances of my high consideration.

Enclosure: Appendix A to replace Annex V, point 6 and footnote (1) to the Agreement and Appendix B to replace Annex VI to the Agreement

[2]

For the Ambassador

Norval E. Francis

[1]

[2]

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

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Titan
Trading Analytics Inc. (the Company) for the period ended October 31, 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John Coulter, President, Chief Executive Officer and Acting 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.

Date: May 14, 2012

By:/s/ John
Coulter       John
Coulter        President, Chief Executive
Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

www.cftc.gov

Open Meeting of the Commission – Wednesday, October 16, 2019 – 10:00 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. First Staff Presentation: Proposed Rule – Amendment to Regulation 23.161 – 

Compliance Schedule Extension

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

Warren Gorlick, DSIO Carmen Moncada-Terry, DSIO

Rafael Martinez, DSIO

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion / Vote

4. Second Staff Presentation: Proposed Rule – Amendments to the Margin Rules for 

Uncleared Swaps (European Stability Mechanism) – 23.151 and 23.157

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

Carmen Moncada-Terry, DSIO Warren Gorlick, DSIO 

Rafael Martinez, DSIO

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion / Vote

5. Closing Statements

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

Commissioner Dawn DeBerry Stump

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

6. Adjournment
# C_2009312EN.01003301.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/33

---

Action brought on 8 October 2009 — ancotel v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel)

(Case T-408/09)

2009/C 312/55

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ancotel GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Truelsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Acotel SpA (Rome, Italy)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 June 2009 in Case R 1385/2008 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 June 2009 in Case R 1385/2008 1;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: ancotel

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘ancotel’ for services in Classes 35 and 38 (Application No 3 314 424)

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: in particular the Italian figurative mark No 643 751 and the Community figurative mark No 1 442 268‘ACOTEL’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue

Pleas in law:

1

---

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

1

---
Dennis Wallace PATTERSON, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 16-9547.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3 denied.
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





I,
      George
      A. McQuain, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Axcess Corp
      (the
      "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the third quarter ended
      September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m
      or 78o(d)); and




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




Dated:
      November 6, 2007




/s/
                  George A. McQuain
              Name:
                      George A. McQuain
                    Title:
                      President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,867-02

EX PARTE DAVID RAY LEA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 52758-A IN THE 239TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BRAZORIA COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

The Court today grants post-conviction habeas corpus relief on the grounds that

Applicant was convicted under a statute that was later declared to be unconstitutionally

overbroad, namely, Texas’ improper photography statute. See Majority Opinion (granting

relief based upon Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)). However,

I believe the argument I made in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Fournier, while

addressing a different statute—Texas’ Online Solicitation of a Minor statute—still applies

to Applicant in this case. See Ex parte Fournier, 473 S.W.3d 789, 800-805 (Tex. Crim. App.
2015) (Yeary, J., dissenting) (arguing that the Court should not grant retroactive relief in

post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings without deciding whether applicants who were

convicted under a statute that has been held to be unconstitutionally overbroad should have

to show that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to them). Therefore, I dissent for the

reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fournier. See Ex parte Chang, ___ S.W.3d ___,

No. WR-82,712-01, 2016 WL 1161092 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 23, 2016) (Yeary, J.,

dissenting).

Filed: April 6, 2016

Do Not Publish
Mitchell Laverne BARROW, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7451.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
Betsy ROSS, Individually and as Next Friend of Minor K.R., et al., petitioners, v. Mary KLESIUS, et al.

No. 17-1032.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Dale Michael WAKEFIELD, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-7146.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
Exhibit 23.1
 
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-61036, 333-89943 and 333-150497) pertaining to the
InsWeb Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan, 1997 Stock Option Plan, 2008 Stock
Option Plan, Senior Executive Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated March 31, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of InsWeb Corporation included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2008.
 
 
 /s/
ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 Sacramento,
California
 March 31,
2009
Maurice Lerome SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7185.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Mark R. SHAYKIN, petitioner, v. Kenneth ROMANOWSKI, Warden.

No. 17-7756.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YIMING LIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70608

Agency No. A088-482-115

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Yiming Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Lin’s 

request for oral argument.

FILED

MAR 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-70608

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 

1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, 

and we remand.

Lin claims he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future 

persecution on account of his religion. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

finding that, assuming Lin is credible, the harm he suffered in China did not rise to 

the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 

2006); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a 

reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted] past 

persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) 

(emphasis in original). 

In addressing Lin’s claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution on 

account of his Christianity, however, the BIA faulted Lin for not providing 

corroborative evidence, even though the IJ did not give Lin notice that 

corroboration was required, or give him an opportunity to obtain it or explain why 

it was not reasonably obtainable. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th 
3 13-70608

Cir. 2011). Thus, we remand Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to 

the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. 

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

We grant respondent’s unopposed motion to withdraw its prior motion to 

hold this case in abeyance. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 

REMANDED.
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 – Commission v Germany**

**(Case C-453/09)**

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

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Discretionary power of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services (Council Directive
2006/112, Arts 96 and 98 and Annex III) (see paras 44, 47-55)

**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) not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption. |

**Operative part**

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 Federal Republic of Germany 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 Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
Eddie Torie BARR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7273.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Jeannette A. SUAREZ, petitioner, v. ANTHEM, INC., fka WellPoint.

No. 17-7691.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., petitioners, v. Ellen GELBOIM, et al.

No. 16-545.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Greg ABBOTT, Governor of Texas, et al., Applicants v. Shannon PEREZ, et al.

No. 17A245.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 31, 2017.

**ORDER**

SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., Associate Justice.

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,

IT IS ORDERED that the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. SA-11-CV-360, entered August 24, 2017, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Thursday, September 7, 2017, by 3 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00503

- CV

IN RE ESTATE OF RAMIRO AGUILAR JR., DECEASED

,
From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Tr ial Court No. 2012

- PC

- 2800 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After this court granted appellants a forty

- five

- day extension, appellants’ brief is currently due December 29, 2016. On December 19, 2016, appellants filed a second motion for extension of time, asking for additional time in which to file their brief. In the motion, which is unopposed, appellants contend they need additional time to file their brief because the clerk’s record

— which was filed in this court on October 14, 2016, and contains only four documents

— is incomplete in that it does not include all of the documents requested by appellants for inc lusion in the clerk’s record. This court cannot determine exactly which documents are missing because the clerk’s record does not contain a request for the clerk’s record that would show exactly what documents appellants requested and appellants did not p rovide this court with a copy of such request. Appellants also ask that we order the clerk to “re

- do” the clerk’s record and resubmit it to this court. We assume by “re

- do” appellants mean the clerk should file a supplemental clerk’s record containing th e documents requested by appellant for inclusion in the clerk’s record.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Bexar County Clerk to: (1) determine the cost of a supplemental clerk’s record that includes all documents requested by appellants for inclusion in the cl erk’s record; (2) send appellants an invoice of said cost within ten day s of the date of this order ; and (3) file the supplemental clerk’s record in this court within thirty days of receipt of payment. We ORDER appellants to file a copy of the invoice in this court immediately upon receipt. We further ORDER appellants to provide payment to the clerk for the supplemental clerk’s record within five days of receipt of the invoice and to file written proof in this court tha t such payment has been made when it is made. We ORDER appellants to file their brief in this court on or before thirty days after the date the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the Bexar County Clerk.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNES S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
# C_2009205EN.01005001.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/50

---

Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Birkhoff v Commission

(Case F-60/09)

2009/C 205/92

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request seeking the extension of the application of Article 2(5) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations for the benefit of his daughter with effect from 1 January 2009 and an order that the Commission pay the sums due under that provision with effect from 1 January 2009.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare to be unlawful and, accordingly, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 April 2009 in so far as it is unlawful and manifestly unfounded in fact and in law, and any subsequent act and/or decision taken prior to that decision, which is connected or consequential to it, and in particular the decision of 14 November 2008 issued by PMO4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare to be unlawful and, accordingly, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 April 2009 in so far as it is unlawful and manifestly unfounded in fact and in law, and any subsequent act and/or decision taken prior to that decision, which is connected or consequential to it, and in particular the decision of 14 November 2008 issued by PMO4;

| — | order the Commission to pay in full the sums not paid to the applicant since 1 January 2009, such sums to take account of indexation, together with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay in full the sums not paid to the applicant since 1 January 2009, such sums to take account of indexation, together with interest;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---