alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2005239EN.01006101.xml

| 15.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 239/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/61

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 70/2005

of 29 April 2005

amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 176/2004 of 3 December 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 176/2004 of 3 December 2004 (1).

| (2) | Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 10c (Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003) of Annex XXII to the Agreement:

| ‘10d. | 32004 L 0025: Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 12).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘10d.

Article 2

The text of Directive 2004/25/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 30 April 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 133, 26.5.2005, p. 31.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 12.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
|   | (1) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Company”)      for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Steven A.      Rogers                          Steven      A. RogersVice      President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2012032EN.01001101.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Austria) — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

(Case C-492/10) (1)

1

(Taxation - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Article 4(2)(b) - Transactions subject to capital duty - Increase in the assets of a company - Contribution made by a member - Absorption of losses by virtue of an undertaking given before the losses were sustained)

2012/C 32/18

Language of the case: German

Referring tribunal

Referring tribunal

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Transactions subject to capital duty — Increase in the assets of a capital company — Possible inclusion in those assets of an undertaking given by a public body, which is the sole member of that company, to absorb the company’s losses

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that the absorption by a member of a company’s losses pursuant to an undertaking given by the member before the losses were sustained, the sole purpose of which was to cover such losses, does not increase the assets of that company.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
Ashley Anders BISHOP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5908.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Lloyd George WHITE, petitioner, v. Tamara JAZZIE, et al.

No. 16-1528.

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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BRUNO DIPASQUALE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2266

) 2D17-2267

LISETTE DIPASQUALE, )

) CONSOLIDATED

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier 

County; Joseph G. Foster, Judge.

Raymond J. Rafool and David R. 

Hazouri of Rafool, LLC, Miami, for 

Appellant.

Cynthia B. Hall of Silveri & Ball, P.A., 

Naples, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Bruno DiPasquale appeals from the final 

judgment dissolving his marriage to Lisette DiPasquale and from the order denying his 

motion to modify the parties' partial marital settlement agreement (PMSA). We affirm 

without prejudice to Mr. DiPasquale asserting the arguments he has raised in this 
- 2 -

appeal in a subsequent petition for modification. Cf. Dogoda v. Dogoda, 233 So. 3d 

484, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("In cases involving an MSA, the effective date of the 

agreement establishes the date to which a trial court should look in determining whether 

a substantial change in circumstances was contemplated by the parties."). 

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOHN DERAFFELE,

Petitioner

v.

HONORABLE HUGH JONES,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 126 MM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27 th day of January , 202 2

, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is

DENIED. The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
Exhibit  32.01

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

     In  connection  with  the Annual Report of AvStar Aviation Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned  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 operations of the
Company.

April  20,  2011                        By:  /s/  Clayton  I.  Gamber
                                             ------------------------
                                        Clayton  I.  Gamber
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer
# L_2008280EN.01002201.xml

| 23.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 280/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 280/22

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 86/2008

of 4 July 2008

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 72/2008 of 6 June 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 72/2008 of 6 June 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to ‘safety in railway tunnels’ in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to ‘safety in railway tunnels’ in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 37da (Commission Decision 2007/756/EC) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘37db. | 32008 D 0163: Commission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to “safety in railway tunnels” in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (OJ L 64, 7.3.2008, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘37db.

32008 D 0163: Commission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to “safety in railway tunnels” in the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail system (OJ L 64, 7.3.2008, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2008/163/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 5 July 2008, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 4 July 2008.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

H.S.H. Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 257, 25.9.2008, p. 36.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 64, 7.3.2008, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Alton MONTINA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8721.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7291** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROGER H. VIAR, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg
. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 6:03

- cr - 30073

- nkm

- mfu

- 13; 6:08

- cv - 80116

- nkm

- mfu )

Submitted : April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Roger H. Viar, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger H. Viar, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies r elief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Viar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Viar’s motion for certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 11

Computation of Earnings per Share



|                                                                                         |  |                                 |          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | ---------
|                                                                                         |  | Three MonthsEndedMarch 31, 2009
|Income available to common stockholders                                                  |  | $                               | 437,600  
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |  | $                               | 4,935,542
|Basic earnings per share                                                                 |  | $                               | 0.09     
|Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |  | $                               | 437,600  
|Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |  | $                               | 4,935,542
|Diluted earnings per share                                                               |  | $                               | 0.09
Gerald A. SANFORD, Sr., petitioner, v. Cherry LINDAMOOD, Warden.

No. 17-8460.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Luis A. ESTRADA-JIMENEZ, petitioner, v. Scott ECKSTEIN, Warden.

No. 16-9117.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1028.

#### Russell, administrator, *v.*Hammock.

Complaint, from city court of Fitzgerald — Judge Jay. January 13, 1908.

Submitted June 14,

Decided July 25, 1908.

*Otis H. Elkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. Wall, E. S. Fuller,*contra.

Russell, J.

1. This court will not undertake to determine errors dependent upon the evidence, where no bona fide effort is made to prepare a proper brief of the evidence.

2. The stenographic report of the testimony adduced in the trial of a case, a large portion of which is in questions and answers, with counsel’s objections to testimony and the rulings of the court thereon included, is not such a brief of evidence as is required by law and the rules of the court. *Judgment affirmed.*
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 13 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00922

- CV

IN RE AMERICAN RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, I NC. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- DCV

- 213947



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 29, 2015, relator American Risk Insurance Company, Inc. filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Brady G. Elliot, presiding judge of the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County
, to vacate its order denying relator’s motion to compel appraisal and to grant such motion

.Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse when there is no other adequate remedy by law. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals , 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not established that it is entitled to
mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator has also filed an emergency motion to stay the trial set for November 16, 2015 . Because we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, we also den y the motion for stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40198

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

v.

GUSTAVO BUSTOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 7:06-CR-594-3

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gustavo Bustos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana. He argues that his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40198

2

sentence is unreasonable.

Bustos was sentenced within the applicable guideline sentencing range,

and his sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435

F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). He presented no argument in the district court in

mitigation of sentence. Moreover, that court adequately explained its reasoning

for the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). Bustos

has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his withinguidelines sentence, and the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall

v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2013225EN.01000201.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-383/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Tax legislation - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by resident banks and excluding interest payments by banks established abroad)

2013/C 225/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Breach of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Restriction on freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — National provisions establishing a tax exemption applicable only to interest paid by Belgian banks, excluding that paid by non–resident banks — Discriminatory taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court declares that:

| 1. | By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By introducing and maintaining a system of discriminatory taxation of interest payments by non-resident banks, resulting from the application of a tax exemption reserved only to interest payments by resident banks, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
# C_2012025EN.01005103.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/51

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)

(Case T-188/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 25/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Residencias Universitarias, SA (Valencia, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 471/2005-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Residencias Universitarias, SA and Galileo International Technology, LLC.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

---
Kevin Duane SNODGRASS, Jr., petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-5202.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Anthony C. LITTRELL, petitioner, v. Jeffrey KRUEGER, Warden.

No. 17-5540.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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