alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009006EN.01000202.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber

(Case C-1/07) (1)

1

(Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Temporary suspension of a driving licence - Withdrawal of right to drive - Validity of a second driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of temporary suspension)

(2009/C 6/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Siegen

Party in the main proceedings

Frank Weber

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Siegen — Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, in its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during a driving ban before the administrative withdrawal of the right to drive by the Member State of residence

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from refusing to recognise, in its territory, a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose right to drive was withdrawn, in the territory of the first Member State, even though that withdrawal was ordered after the issue of that driving licence, provided that the licence was obtained during a period in which a licence issued in the first Member State was suspended and both the suspension and the withdrawal are based on grounds existing at the date of issue of the second driving licence.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
# C_2008197EN.01003604.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — Angiotech Pharmaceuticals v OHIM (VASCULAR WRAP)

(Case T-342/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 197/68)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3819 

To amend a provision of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 regarding 

prohibitions on investments in certain funds to clarify that such provision 

shall not be construed to require the divestiture of certain collateralized 

debt obligations backed by trust-preferred securities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2014 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, and Mr. MCHENRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend a provision of the Bank Holding Company Act 

of 1956 regarding prohibitions on investments in certain 

funds to clarify that such provision shall not be construed to require the divestiture of certain collateralized 

debt obligations backed by trust-preferred securities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for Commu5 nity Job Creators Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3819 IH

1 SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO DEBT IN2 STRUMENTS. 

3 Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 

4 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1851) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(i) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec7 tion shall be construed to require the divestiture of any 

8 collateralized debt obligations issued before December 10, 

9 2013, that as of December 10, 2013, are predominantly 

10 backed by trust-preferred securities.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2009153EN.01003803.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/38

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — HALTE v Commission

(Case T-58/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 153/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens (HALTE) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J.-L. Lesquins, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and E. Righini, Agents.)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action seeking a declaration, under Article 232 EC, that by refraining from initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88 EC and from adopting protective measures in relation to the aid allegedly granted in the context of the sale of SERNAM SA, the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action;

| 2. | The Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens (HALTE) and the Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Honorable Association de Logisticiens et de Transporteurs Européens (HALTE) and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63Of Title 18 of the United States Code**

** **

I, Dirk A.Sodetrom, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as anofficer of Westaff, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to the best of my knowledge;

 

(3)                                  TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 21,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:  March 7, 2006 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
|                      | By: | /s/  Dirk A. Sodestrom |   |
|                      |   | Dirk  A. Sodestrom |   |
|                      | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                           |  |  |  |  |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906

 has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will beretained by Westaff, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Milton A. Alpern, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable.]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                           /s/ Milton A. Alpern  Date: August 14, 2006 Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  
30
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134319 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

COLIN INNES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 134319 

 COA: 276633 

WCAC: 05-000356 

ALLIED AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., and 

RELIANCE NATIONAL IDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of January 30, 2008, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Stokes v 

Chrysler LLC (Docket No. 132648). On order of the Court, the case having been decided 

on June 12, 2008, 481 Mich 266 (2008), the application is again considered and, pursuant 

to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the 

Board of Magistrates for a new hearing and decision consistent with this Court’s decision 

in Stokes. The plaintiff’s current entitlement to benefits shall continue until a new 

decision is issued by the Board. 

WEAVER, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004065EN.01000101.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/1

---

(2004/C 65 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject:   Abolition of access fees at airports

Subject:

A large part of the aviation industry considers that paying airports further fees in addition to rent and other airport charges, as agents and self-handling users must do to obtain a concession to provide ground handling services, is unfair and excessive.

Lufthansa has succeeded in having the access fee abolished by judgment of a German court. Air France is reportedly moving in the same direction.

Can the Commission comment on the German court judgment?

Does it intend to take a legislative initiative in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

(17 April 2002)

The Honourable Member seems to refer to the Order of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) of Frankfurt am Main which was issued in 2001 in the legal proceedings between Hannover-Langenhagen Airport and Lufthansa.

The issue between the two parties in this case is whether Hannover airport is entitled to require Lufthansa to pay an access fee in respect of its check-in services on a self-handling basis for its passengers, and as a supplier of such services for passengers of other airlines.

The Order does not contain a decision on the issue but it stays the proceedings and puts a number of questions before the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the EC Treaty. These questions refer to the interpretation of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (1), and essentially ask the Court of Justice to clarify whether and to what extent the access fee can be levied from self handlers and third party handlers which were already present at an airport before the entry into force of the Directive.

1

The case was registered by the Court of Justice on 24 September 2001 and the Commission submitted its observations on the case to the Court on 14 January 2002.

Regarding this particular issue no legislative initiative is envisaged, but the Commission will undertake a comprehensive review of the Directive in 2003 which may lead to proposals for modifications of parts of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 272, 25.10.1996.

1

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DMF, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
AMP PLUS, INC., dba ELCO Lighting , ELCO LIGHTING, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________
2024

- 1877

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:18

- cv

- 07090

- CAS

GJS, Senior Judge Christina A. Snyder.

______________________ Before L OURIE , C UNNINGHAM , and S TARK , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to the court’s show cause order, in which both parties agree that no final, appealable judgment has yet been entered in this

case 1
, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) This appeal is dismissed

. Case: 24-1877 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 08/30/2024DMF , INC

. v. AMP PLUS , INC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs

.

August 30 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT

1 Alt hough DMF , Inc. urges that this case be dismissed “without prejudice to DMF raising issues in the ‘Interim Judgment’ in a notice of appeal timely filed afterentry of final judgment,” ECF No. 12 at 12, this court generally does not specify whether a dismissal of an appea l is with prejudice. Case: 24-1877 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 08/30/2024
Michael M. Berens, Plaintiff, v. Melissa C. Berens, Defendant.

No. COA15-1136

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# CE2004078EN.01036302.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/363

---

(2004/C 78 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination in the treatment of citizens of EU Member States by the Turkish government

Subject:

Is the Commission aware that there is discrimination between Netherlands and German citizens with regard to the fee charged for a residence permit in Turkey, i.e. EUR 277 for by Netherlands citizens and EUR 60 for Germans for the same permit?

Does the Commission know how much the Turkish government charges citizens of other EU Member States for a residence permit?

If the Commission prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Turkish authorities with a view to ending this discrimination against Netherlands citizens, and possibly citizens of other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware that different fees are charged for residence permits according to the nationality of Union citizens and intends to take this issue up in the context of its regular contacts with the Turkish authorities.

A new law on Work Permit for Foreigners' was adopted by the Turkish Parliament on 27 February 2003. The law states that Union citizens will be granted a work permit without any time limitation in Turkey. Union citizens with a work permit will automatically be granted a residence permit covering the same period. The law also sets fixed fee rates for work permits to be issued to all foreigners (regardless of their nationality). The provisions in the recently adopted law may have implications on fee rates applied for residence permits.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Charles BASKINS.

No. COA15-1137.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE v. Kawamie Shonta COLE.

No. 378P09-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jason T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kawamie Shonta Cole, Lillington, for Cole, Kawamie Shonta.

Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of October 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

JACKSON, J. recused.
Exhibit 8.1

                 SUBSIDIARIES OF INDUSTRIAS BACHOCO S.A. DE C.V.

         The following chart lists each of our subsidiaries and indicates its
principal activity and the percentage of the capital stock of each such
subsidiary which we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2005, and
April 30, 2006:

1.    Acuicola Bachoco, S.A. de C.V.

2.    Aviser, S.A. de C.V.

3.    Bachoco, S.A. de C.V. ("BSACV")

4.    Campi Alimentos, S.A. de C.V.

5.    Huevo y Derivados, S.A. de C.V.

6.    Operadora de Servicios de Personal, S.A. de C.V.

7.    Pecuarius Laboratorios, S.A. de C.V.

8.    Secba, S.A. de C.V.

9.    Sepetec, S. A. de C.V.

10.  Servicios de Personal Administrativo, S.A. de C.V.

Each of the Subsidiaries listed is incorporated under the laws of Mexico.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry
K. Hinson, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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) 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/  Larrry K. Hinson
----------------------------------
Larry K. Hinson,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer
June 30, 2003


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


<PAGE>
### 545

**OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVER SELLERS**  **ATrORNEY GLNIIAL**  Hon. ChnrlseR. Martin county huaitor Harrison county M*rrhall,

Tex88 DWf sira ,I- I’ )

‘Tb CountyXrylnoem Texas cm plamdig 8 state waoo, Texas, in the near r working out way8 or in road **work,** 0 or tbr r logallyapprove srioamr8'

oou.rt a ln attenaiag

ruoh I a 00~ 0r **linitbd j~ridi0-**  oonrorrcrd

upon it by the coaState **bT** expmsr toraw or **by** inplioa**t,** 173 S.W. 308; Ulllsrv. Brown, 216 **County,** 11b S.'X.

ed 479; rJalvrrton, ounty, lb7 S.T. **Zd** 1084; 11 TOX. Jur.

mrl8lona of the YardTaxaa,Regular9o~alon,**4Wd** Logirlatum **, 19Jlj**  aa wall ae4 the proticlions

or the gaeaml road law, and M are unable to **find** any provirloa

nhioh suthoritor

the conmt.rrlonmw*

court or Harrlaon **County** to rxpandoormty**funds** ia paymaat Of a olalm for tmvellng rxpm8ar **0r** the **oharaater** mentionedln your lottar.

### 546
Hon. Charles Ii.'%rtia - Page E

In rier of the aboveana r0r6g0ing, it ia OUT op*tiion that you cannot legally a?prOve the olai5aoverlng the Cymtp b&,“yr*e expeheee in attending

the meetingmterrea t* in your

. c” Your8 very truly ATTOP~Y LJLERnLO?, TEXAS

JAE:djm

.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification





I, Theodore Abajian, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CKE Restaurants, Inc.





Date: April 15, 2011
/s/ THEODORE ABAJIANTheodore Abajian

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.