alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008051EN.01002301.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark

(Case C-436/06) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Taxation - Income tax - National legislation concerning the taxation of profits made from the sale of shareholdings (shares) in limited companies)

(2008/C 51/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt

Applicants:

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — Tax on the profits made from the sale of shares in limited companies — National legislation making taxation conditional upon a shareholding of at least 10 % if the company concerned is subject to unlimited corporation tax in the Member State, but conditional upon a shareholding of at least 1 % if the company concerned is established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the profits from a sale of shares in 2001 in a limited company established in another Member State are immediately taxable where the seller had held, either directly or indirectly, a share of at least 1 % of the company's capital within the previous five years, whereas the profits from the sale of shares in 2001, in the same circumstances, in a limited company established in that first Member State subject to unlimited corporation tax were subject to tax only in the case of a substantial shareholding of at least 10 %.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01000702.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-119/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts - Award of a contract without a call for tenders - Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany)

(2008/C 22/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Recchia, acting as Agents, and M. Mollina, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and G. Fiengo and S, Varone, avocats)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 11, 15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Award of a contract without publication of the appropriate notice — Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.4

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Alfred J. Dilmore, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAIT Financial Trust;

 

2.        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date:        April 30, 2018

 

|        |        |                                                                                                       |        |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Alfred J. Dilmore                                                                                 |   |
|   |   | Name:  Alfred J. Dilmore.                                                                   |   |
|   |   | Title:    Interim Chief Financial Officer, Interim Treasurer and                  |
|   |   | Chief Accounting Officer                                                                    |   |
|   |   |             (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
947.0678
# CE2004088EN.01010501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/105

---

(2004/C 88 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 August 2003)

Subject:   Protection of excavations at ancient Salamis, Cyprus

Subject:

Professor V. Karageorghis of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus, who carried out excavations at ancient Salamis in collaboration with the French archaeological expedition before the invasion of the island, claims that a Turkish professor, S. Ozgurel, is excavating at ancient Salamis without having obtained authorisation from the previous excavators. Since, firstly, it is international practice to obtain permission from the previous excavator and, secondly, Turkey has been a signatory since 1965 to the Hague Convention, Article 5 of which expressly prohibits any archaeological work on territory occupied by foreign forces without the consent of the lawful government of the country, will the Commission say what representations it will make to the Turkish Cypriot authorities to stop these illegal excavations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

(15 September 2003)

In general, responsibilities in the field of culture remain with the Member States. The competences of the Community are limited.

Concerning the excavations at ancient Salamis, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member. There is no legal basis for the Commission to undertake action in this case.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Lekkie Constantine WILSON.

No. 436A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Kevin Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Scott Thomas, District Attorney, for State of NC,

L. Jayne Stowers, Winston-Salem, for Wilson.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 751.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 17th day of September 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1600
BOBBY N. HOLLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-2335) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby N. Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Gary R. Allen, Patricia McDonald Bowman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the tax court's order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and upholding a finding of a tax deficiency and penalties. We have reviewed the record and the tax court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Holland v. Commissioner , No. 95-2335 (Tax Ct. Feb. 6, 1996). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3682 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3682

To designate the community based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, 
     as the ``Lyle C. Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2013

   Mr. Walz (for himself, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Kline, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 
  Paulsen, Ms. McCollum, Mrs. Bachmann, and Mr. Nolan) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the community based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
 Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, 
     as the ``Lyle C. Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. LYLE C. PEARSON COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The community based outpatient clinic of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in 
Mankato, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Connie Prentice REAVES.

No. 225P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Narcisa Woods, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Connie Prentice Reaves, Spruce Pine, for Reaves, Connie Prentice.

Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2015 by Defendant for Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
----

(2004/C 33 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Illegal employment in the fisheries sector

It has recently been reported that up to 50 per cent of workers employed in UK fish processing plants are employed illegally. Many endure deplorable working conditions, working double shifts and seven-day weeks, and are paid less than the minimum wage. During recent raids, the UK Department of Work and Pensions and the police found that half of the workers gutting, filleting and packing fish were foreign and that a third of them had entered the country illegally.

What measures does the Commission propose to protect such workers? Does the Commission have any plans to regulate the labour agencies known as ‘gangmasters’ which are responsible for checking the status of the workers in law and which are now shown to have exploited some of the most vulnerable people?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission does not have any information concerning the facts described by the Honourable Member. Although it regrets that such situations can occur, it can intervene only where a principle or provision of Community law is contravened.

Fishing was excluded from the scope of Directive 93/104/EC (1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, but is now covered by Directive 2000/34/EC (2), which has to be incorporated into the national legislation of Member States no later than 1 August 2003 (1 August 2004 in the case of doctors in training).

In any event, it is the task of the competent national authorities (judicial or other authorities), to ensure the correct application of the provisions of national or Community law, also with regard to the fight against undeclared work. In its Communication of 3 June 2003 (3) the Commission notes that undeclared work seems to be on the increase in many Member States. However, since 2000, and especially in 2003, the employment policy guidelines have included a commitment to combat this phenomenon. Furthermore, one of the essential aspects of the common immigration policy is to combat illegal immigration, as set out in the recent conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council.

----

(1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2)  Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(3)  Communication on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents, COM(2003) 323 final.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7034

JAMES TRACEY LEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(4:07-cv-02742-HFF)

Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: September 9, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Tracey Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, SOUTH CAROLINA

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Tracey Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lee has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. Kenneth SHIELDS.

No. 60P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Tamika L. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Department of Public Safety.

Michael C. Byrne, for Shields, Kenneth.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2016 by Petitioner in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2007 – Assembled Investments (Proprietary) v OHIM – Waterford
Wedgwood (WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH)**

**(Case T-105/05)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH – Earlier Community word mark WATERFORD – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the goods – Absence of complementarity – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3)) (see para. 13)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2004 (Case R 240/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Waterford Wedgwood and Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH for goods in Class 33 – Application No 1438860 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Waterford Wedgwood plc |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community Word mark WATERFORD for goods in Classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34 – Community mark No 397521 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Contested decision annulled; application for registration dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2004 (Case R 240/2004-1); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Waterford Wedgwood plc to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant. |
# C_2008092EN.01000801.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) — Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Malina Klöppel

Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

(Case C-507/06) (1)

1

(Entitlement to childcare allowance in Austria - Periods of drawing family benefits in another Member State not taken into account - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

(2008/C 92/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Malina Klöppel

Appellant:

Respondent: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

Respondent:

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 72 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 1), and Article as well as of Article 10(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 410/2002 of 27 February 2002 (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 17) — Childcare allowance — Possibility of extending the period of granting from 30 months to 36 months where care of the child is transferred and allowance granted to other parent — Account not taken of periods, completed jointly by the father and the mother, of granting of a similar allowance paid to the other parent in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended in turn by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as the Austrian childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
Order entered August 11, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00215-CV

MARSHA DENISE DILLON, BENEFICIARY, ON BEHALF OF THE 

ESTATE OF BASKIN J. CULPEPPER AND MARSHA DILLON, 

INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants

V.

KIMBERLY KING, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-17-01307-2

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ August 7, 2020 opposed motion for extension 

of time to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed 

no later than August 21, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Brown Jordan
International, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 25, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Vincent A. Tortorici, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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)
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
Company. Date: October 8, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Vincent A. TortoriciVincent A. TortoriciChief Financial Officer