alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Christopher CHAPMAN, et ux., petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-1380.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 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

In connection with the Annual Report of GSI
Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Roush, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ John A. RoushJohn A. RoushChief Executive Officer


March 30, 2011

This Certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, or incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GSI Group Inc. and will be retained by GSI Group Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2011370EN.01001501.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Tanoarch s.r.o. v Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-504/10) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Assignment of a share in the rights relating to an invention, held by a number of undertakings, to an undertaking which has the right to use that invention in its entirety - Abusive practice)

2011/C 370/23

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tanoarch s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation 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), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof — Transfer of some of the rights over an invention, held by various undertakings, to an undertaking already having the right to use the said invention in its entirety — Possible existence of a right to deduct input tax

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A taxpayer may, in principle, claim a right of deduction of input VAT paid or payable for the supply of a service, carried out for consideration, where the applicable national law permits the assignment of a share of the co-ownership of an invention which confers rights relating to the invention. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A taxpayer may, in principle, claim a right of deduction of input VAT paid or payable for the supply of a service, carried out for consideration, where the applicable national law permits the assignment of a share of the co-ownership of an invention which confers rights relating to the invention.

| 2. | It is for the referring court to establish, taking into account all the factual circumstances characterising the supply of the service in the case in the main proceedings, whether or not there has been an abuse of rights with regard to the right of deduction of input VAT. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the referring court to establish, taking into account all the factual circumstances characterising the supply of the service in the case in the main proceedings, whether or not there has been an abuse of rights with regard to the right of deduction of input VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.

1

---
David CRAMER, petitioner, v. CITY OF AUBURN, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 17-8227.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Delano Marco MEDINA, petitioner, v. Johnny CHOATE.

No. 17-8057.

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.
Charles V. SCHNEIDER, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-1362.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Anthony CAJIGAS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-1119.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
# C_2011269EN.01004801.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM (Purple rectangle with a rounded side)

(Case T-499/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a purple rectangle with a rounded side - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 269/105

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented initially by S. Stürmann, then by S. Stürmann and G. Schneider, and subsequently by S. Stürmann and R. Manea, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2009 (Case R 491/2009-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a purple rectangle with a rounded side.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3875 

To prohibit Federal funding from being used for the purchase or use of 

facial recognition technology, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2019 

Ms. TLAIB introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding from being used for the purchase or use of facial recognition technology, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR FACIAL 

4 RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used 

6 for the purchase or use of facial recognition technology. 

7 (b) FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY DEFINED.— 

8 In this Act, the term ‘‘facial recognition technology’’ 

9 means technology which facilitates or otherwise enables an 

10 automated or semi-automated process that assists in idenVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3875.IH H3875

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3875 IH

1 tifying an individual based on the physical characteristics 

2 of the individual’s face, or that logs characteristics of an 

3 individual’s face, head, or body to infer emotion, associa4 tions, activities, or the location of an individual. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall take effect on 

6 the date that is 30 days after the date of enactment of 

7 this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2010080EN.01001602.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

(Case C-29/10)

2010/C 80/30

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heiko Koelzsch

Applicant:

Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is the rule of conflict in Article 6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, (1) which states that an employment contract is governed by the law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the situation where the employee works in more than one country, but returns systematically to one of them, that country must be regarded as that in which the employee habitually carries out his work?

1

---

(1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).

1

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with CoBank
  
    



  Participants discussed the definition of "swap dealer"
      
  When
              04/12/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              II. Definitions

  CFTC Staff
              Eric Juzenas

  Visitor(s)
              Todd VanHoose, CoBank

  Organization(s)
              CoBank


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            453,352
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,889,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                      500,000
<INVENTORY>                                     2,420,350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,321,161
<PP&E>                                          3,861,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,157,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,637,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,120,865
<BONDS>                                         3,424,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             5
<COMMON>                                            3,730
<OTHER-SE>                                      7,254,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,637,828
<SALES>                                        30,029,526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,029,526
<CGS>                                          22,631,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,614,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  685,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  180,992
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                555,202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (465,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (144,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (321,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (321,036)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.17)



</TABLE>
# C_2010346EN.01004102.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

---

Order of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-32/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pre-litigation procedure - Appeal clearly unfounded - Cross-appeal limited to costs)

2010/C 346/82

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 (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as clearly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as clearly unfounded.

| 2. | The cross-appeal is dismissed as clearly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The cross-appeal is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.

| 3. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal.

| 4. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs in the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs in the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 69,21.3.2009.

1

---
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
GenVec, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-101963) on Form S-3, in the registration statement (No. 333-76886) on Form
S-3/A, and in the registration statements (No. 333-55590, 333-55586 and No.
333-55584) on Form S-8 of GenVec, Inc. of our report dated March 13, 2003, with
respect to the balance sheets of GenVec, Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and 2001,
and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which
report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of GenVec,
Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
March 27, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at July 1, 1999 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the year-to-date period ended July 1, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-1-1999
<CASH>                                          43,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,995
<INVENTORY>                                      6,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,647
<PP&E>                                       1,218,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                 342,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,053,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,227
<BONDS>                                        467,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,176
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           493
<OTHER-SE>                                     453,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,053,337
<SALES>                                         27,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               397,275
<CGS>                                           27,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  203,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,248
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,361
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (4,073)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,692
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
# C_2010024EN.01006802.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/68

---

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Cittá)

(Case T-482/09)

2010/C 24/121

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1047/2008-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1047/2008-4.

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER Città’ (Application No 4 939 302) in respect of services in Class 35.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) for services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Laserscope on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended June 30, 2005, I, Eric M. Reuter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Laserscope,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended June 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Laserscope.     Date: August 9, 2005 By: /s/ Eric M. Reuter         Eric M. Reuter    President and Chief Executive Officer