alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008128EN.01000401.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France)) — Philippe Derouin v Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf)

(Case C-103/06) (1)

1

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Self employed workers living and working in France - General social contribution - Social debt repayment contribution - Account taken of income received in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double taxation treaty)

(2008/C 128/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philippe Derouin

Applicant:

Defendant: Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf)

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France) — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — Account taken for the purpose of calculating the ‘contribution sociale généralisée’ (general social contribution) and the ‘contribution pour le remboursement de la dette sociale’ (social debt repayment contribution) payable by a self-employed worker subject to French social legislation of income earned in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double-taxation convention.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State whose social legislation is alone applicable to a resident self employed worker, from excluding from the tax base for contributions such as the General Social Contribution and the Social Debt Repayment Contribution income earned by the worker in another Member State, by application, in particular, of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 32

                                 BIOCORAL, INC.
                            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 Biocoral, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nasser Nassiri, the
President, CEO, Chairman of the Board of the Company and the Principal
Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ Nasser Nassiri
                                          ------------------
                                          Nasser Nassiri
                                          President, CEO, Chairman of the Board
                                          and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: May 19, 2004

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


                                       26
EXHIBIT 21-1



CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



Set forth below is a list of the Registrants subsidiaries as of January 31, 2003:



|                                     |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |            | Control by
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------- | ---------- | ----------
|Name of Subsidiary                   |  |                              | Registrant |           
|                                    
|Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc.       |  | California                   |            | 100%      
|Hardees Food Systems, Inc.          |  | North Carolina               |            | 100%      
|Flagstar Enterprises, Inc.           |  | Alabama                      |            | 100%      
|Spardees Realty, Inc.               |  | Alabama                      |            |           
|HED Inc.                             |  | North Carolina               |            |           
|Burger Chef Systems, Inc.            |  | North Carolina               |            |           
|Hardees LTD, Fribourg               |  | Switzerland                  |            |           
|Hardees REIT I                      |  | Delaware                     |            |           
|Hardees REIT II                     |  | Delaware                     |            |           
|CKE REIT I, Inc                      |  | Delaware                     |            | 100%      
|CKE REIT, II, Inc.                   |  | Delaware                     |            | 100%      
|Carls Jr. Region VIII, Inc.         |  | Delaware                     |            |           
|Aeroway, LLC                         |  | California                   |            | 100%      
|Santa Barbara Restaurant Group, Inc. |  | Delaware                     |            | 100%      
|Green Burrito, Inc.                  |  | California                   |            |           
|La Salsa, Inc.                       |  | Delaware                     |            |           
|Timber Lodge Steakhouse, Inc.        |  | Minnesota                    |            |           
|GB Franchise Corporation             |  | California                   |            |           
|La Salsa of Nevada, Inc.             |  | Nevada                       |            |           
|La Salsa Franchise, Inc.             |  | California                   |            |           
|                                     |  |                              |            |
STATE of North Carolina v. Teon Jamell WILLIAMS.

No. 8P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2016.

Teon Jamell Williams, for Williams, Teon Jamell.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 2nd of March 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Iredell County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of March 2016."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6345

DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden of the Federal Correctional

Complex in Petersburg, Virginia,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00094-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-2-

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Alan Jarvis appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for contempt. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order.

Jarvis v. Stansberry, No. 2:07-cv-00094-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. filed

Feb. 19 & entered Feb. 20, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
PIRO v. PIRO.

No. 108P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Karen Shapiro, Huntersville, for Piro, Karen Shapiro.

Gena Graham Morris, Charlotte, for Piro, Michael C.

*851Mr. Christopher Thomas Hood, Charlotte, for Piro, Michael C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of May 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEVIN THOMAS COOPER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 330 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Markcus Raemon HERRERA, Defendant.

No. COA15-674.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2005082EN.01004202.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/42

---

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-37/05)

(2005/C 82/75)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España (WWTE) S.A. of Madrid (Spain), represented by Miguel Odriozola Alén, Marta Marañón Hermoso and Adrian Emch, of the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | reduce the fine imposed on WWTE in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

reduce the fine imposed on WWTE in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision at issue is the same as in case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission
   (1).

Standard Commercial and Others

Commission

1

The grounds put forward by the applicant are similar to those relied on in that case (infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003).

In particular, it is stated that the Commission applied more severe dissuasive factors against the applicant than against other Spanish processors, in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine imposed. Futhermore, the applicant's conduct cannot be imputed to its parent companies Trans-Continental Corporation Leaf Tobacco, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Standard Commercial Corporation.

Likewise, the applicant submits that the guidelines on the calculation of fines and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed, in so far as the Commission failed to take into consideration attenuating circumstances that it is the first time that the raw tobacco has been investigated, that the applicant put an end to the infringements as soon as the Commission took action, and in 1996 and 1997 the agreements were not implemented.

---

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

1

---
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 688 

For the relief of Griselda Lopez Negrete. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Griselda Lopez Negrete. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101 et seq.), Griselda Lopez Negrete shall be considered 

7 to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 

8 permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of 

9 this Act upon payment of the required visa fees. 

10 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS. 

11 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to 

12 Griselda Lopez Negrete, as provided in section 1, the SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:37 Feb 28, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S688.IS S688

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 688 IS

1 retary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 

2 by 1 during the current or next following fiscal year the 

3 total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the 

4 country of the birth of Griselda Lopez Negrete under sec5 tion 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

6 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)). 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.R., 

A CHILD

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-07-00315-CV

Appeal from the

388th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2001CM4794) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether this appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant has not filed a brief or a

motion for extension of time, we dismiss the appeal.

Following this Court’s order granting Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to

file a brief, Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on June 13, 2008. Despite the extensions,

Appellant has failed to file a brief. On June 23, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified the parties

of the Court’s intent to dismiss for want of prosecution if, within ten days of the notice, no party

responded showing grounds to continue the appeal. We have not received a response.

This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when

Appellant has failed to file her brief in the time proscribed, and gives no reasonable explanation

for such failure. TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63

(Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no writ.). We have given notice of our intent to do so, requested

a response if a reasonable basis for failure to file the brief or statement of facts exists, and have
-2-

received none. We see no purpose that would be served by declining to dismiss this appeal at

this stage in the proceedings. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant

to TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(c).

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO****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 of Kitty Hawk, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 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 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.

 

| May 12, 2003 |   |      |
|--------------|--------|-----------|
|              |   | By:  | /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER,JR. |
|         |   |      |  |
|         |   |      |     **Robert W. Zoller, Jr.****Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President** |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

CLIFTON LEE BURNS, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1240-08-1 PER CURIAM 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION AND 

 INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE 

 OF PENNSYLVANIA/AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gary R. West, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Adam S. Rafal; Lisa L. Thatch; Vandeventer Black LLP, on brief), 

for appellees. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

 Clifton Lee Burns, Jr. appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding that he failed to prove his right lateral epicondylitis constituted a compensable 

occupational disease or ordinary disease of life. We have reviewed the record and the 

commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Burns v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 

VWC File No. 228-09-09 (April 28, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily 

affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Ralph M. Amato, Chief Financial Officer of BoysToys.com, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:



(1)	the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), to which this Statement is filed as an exhibit, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





|Dated: | August 13, 2004                          
|------ | -----------------------------------------
|       |                                          
|By:    | /s/ Ralph M. AmatoChief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135993 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135993 

 COA: 282378 

Wayne CC: 86-008013

JOHN GOODSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Scott, 480 Mich 1019 (2008). 

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
State of North Carolina v. Bruce Lamont Gorham

No. 244P11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Bruce L. Gorham, Pro Per.

**ORDER**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of January 2016 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of January 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

*918Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of January 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of January 2016 by Defendant for Subpoena Duces Tecum:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of March 2016 by Defendant to Amend:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
----

(2004/C 33 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/03

by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   EU funds for people with disabilities from 2004

The European Commission declared 2003 the Year of People with Disabilities'. Numerous projects, events and initiatives promoting the integration of disabled people are being given financial support by the EU to mark the occasion. The deadlines for submitting suggestions for projects were in March.

No specific EU programme currently exists to promote the integration of disabled people.

What plans has the Commission made in this area?

What programmes and actions will be maintained by financial support for work with disabled people after the end of the ‘Year of People with Disabilities’?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission cannot commit itself to introducing a specific action programme at the moment. One of the objectives of the European Year of People with Disabilities will be to identify new challenges to address and to pave the way for new initiatives at Union level. In consultation with the various actors, the Commission will evaluate the European Year and consider relevant initiatives to propose in order to move the Union disability agenda forward. Moreover, account has to be taken by the fact that disability issues are currently directly addressed in several new programmes which have just started such as the nondiscrimination programme, the EQUAL Community initiative or in the Commission's actions to promote social inclusion. In the context of the non discrimination programme, a series of disability-specific activities are undertaken: national information days, support to disability organisations, award for all design and some transnational projects specifically dealing with disability discrimination issues.

In the Commission's view, supporting citizens with disabilities to become an effective part of the economic and social fabric of society means participation in the mainstream whenever it is possible and taking account of their needs in all relevant policy areas: herein lies full social integration. The Commission therefore aims to do this under all its relevant funding programmes, allowing access to these for disabled people and the organisations which represent them, and thereby promoting an approach based on mainstreaming and integration, rather than segregation into disability-specific arrangements.

----