alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011269EN.01001601.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)) — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-263/10) (1)

1

(Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles)

2011/C 269/25

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu

Applicant:

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Gorj — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Pollution tax on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Classification of the criterion of ‘date of first registration’ — Whether the national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU — Whether exemption from payment of the tax, introduced for certain categories of vehicle, is lawful — Possible application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
# C_2011204EN.01001001.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-184/10) (1)

1

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition - Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition)

2011/C 204/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mathilde Grasser

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Driving licence issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State normally resident in that other Member State at the time of issue of the licence and never having been the subject of a measure withdrawing the national licence — Whether Member States may refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State on the sole basis of the infringement of the residence condition

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2008/65/EC of 27 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory a driving licence issued by another Member State, where it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in that licence, that the normal residence condition, laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, has not been observed. The fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of that directive to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TransDigm Holding
Company (the Company) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory Rufus, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant
Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the
Company for the periods indicated.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: December 19,
2003



/s/ Gregory RufusName:

Gregory RufusTitle:

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Timothy A. JACKSON, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-947.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011362EN.01000901.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — PepsiCo, Inc., v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-281/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 5, 6, 10 and 25(1)(d) - Community design - Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item - Prior Community design - Different overall impression - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Scope of review by the Courts - Distortion of the facts)

2011/C 362/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: PepsiCo, Inc., (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado, and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, abogada), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07 Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — Pepsico, by which that Court upheld an action brought by the proprietor of Community design No 53186 1 against decision R 1001/2005-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 October 2006, annulling the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared design No 74463 1 (‘promotional item[s] for games’) invalid

Grupo Promer Mon Graphic

OHIM — Pepsico

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders PepsiCo Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PepsiCo Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.2



Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Gary Rever, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of Avatech Solutions, Inc. (the Registrant), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended December 31, 2002 of the Registrant (the Report):



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/    Gary
Rever
|Name:            
|Date:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             528,316
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       52,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                               2,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,164,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          1,043
<COMMON>                                            16,683
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,411,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,164,150
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
Brenda SEWELL, petitioner, v. Brad BULL, et al.

No. 17-1308.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
Patricia SUKONIK, petitioner, v. Holly WALLACK.

No. 16-9606.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, James A. Prestiano, President, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of
Algiers Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002, (the "Report") which this statement accompanies, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Dated: April 15, 2003                        /s/ James A. Prestiano
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            James A. Prestiano
                                            President, Secretary
                                            and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,352
<SECURITIES>                                    31,420
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,305<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,245
<PP&E>                                          35,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 535,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,903
<BONDS>                                        122,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                     358,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,323
<SALES>                                         94,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,006
<CGS>                                           27,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,915
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,503
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
<FN>
<F1>Includes raw material and work in process inventory of $10,410.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Christopher Maddox MOSSBURG, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 16-9248.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 20

- 2849

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Kouang Viphongxai

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________

Submitted: June 18, 2021 Filed: June 28, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Kouang Viphongxai pleaded guilty to one count of passing counterfeit obligations or securities of the United States, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 472, the district

court 1 sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment an d 3 years’ supervised release.

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.-2- Viphongxai appealed, arguing that the district court committed procedural error in imposing a five

- point offense

- level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)

- (3)

, which affected the calculation of his advisory sentencing guid elines range.

While this appeal was pending, the Government informed us that on April 5, 2021, Viphongxai was released from the Bureau of Prisons’ custody to begin his term of supervised release. Because Viphongxai challenged on appeal only his

sentenc e of imprisonment, we ordered Viphongxai to address whether his appeal

was moot. See Owen v. United States , 930 F.3d 989, 989

- 91 (8th Cir. 2019) (dismissing an appeal as moot because the appellant challenged only the length of his term of imprisonment but completed that term and was released from prison while the appeal was pending). In response, Viphongxai stated that he “takes no position on mootness.”

“[W]e have no jurisdiction over appeals that are moot.” United States v.
Evans , 690 F.3d 940, 943 (8 th Cir. 2012). Because Viphongxai challenged on appeal only the length of his term of imprisonment, and he has completed that term , we conclude that this appeal is moot. See Owen , 930 F.3d at 990. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

______________________________
Exhibit EX-99.906CERT

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)**

In connection with the attached Report of Fidelity Capital Trust  (the "Trust") on FormN-CSR to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Trust does hereby certify that, to the best of such officer'sknowledge:

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 Trust as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Report.

Dated:	December 26, 2012

Dated:	December 26, 2012

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typedform within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
James Bryson GRAHAM, petitioner, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 17-1323.

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.
# C_2012217EN.01000301.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy

(Case C-615/10) (1)

1

(Directive 2004/18/EC - Public contracts in the field of defence - Article 10 - Article 296(1)(b) EC - Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests - Trade in arms, munitions and war material - Product procured by a contracting authority specifically for military purposes - Existence, as regards that product, of a potential and largely identical civilian application - Tiltable turntable for carrying out electromagnetic measurements - Contract not put out to tender in accordance with the procedures provided for by Directive 2004/18)

2012/C 217/04

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy,

party heard in the matter: Puolustusvoimat

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 10 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) and Article 346 TFEU — List of arms, munitions and war material adopted by Decision No 255/58 of the Council of 15 April 1958 — Scope of the directive — Material intended primarily for military use — Turntable equipment for electromagnetic measurements

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 296(1)(b) EC, must be interpreted as authorising a Member State to set aside the procedures laid down by that directive in the case of a public contract awarded by a contracting authority in the field of defence for the acquisition of material which, although intended for specifically military purposes, also presents possibilities for essentially identical civilian applications only if that material, by virtue of its intrinsic characteristics, may be regarded as having been specially designed and developed, also as a result of substantial modifications, for such purposes, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
Ray Wilbur PAYN, petitioner, v. Gerald E. KELLEY, et al.

No. 17-824.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.