alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008037EN.01003402.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/34

---

Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Dominguez Gonzalez v Commission

(Case F-88/07)

(2008/C 37/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Juan Luís Domínguez González (Girona, Spain) (represented by: R. Nicolazzi Angelats, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 310,68 for damages, not including material and personal damages, and the costs of the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 310,68 for damages, not including material and personal damages, and the costs of the application;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks compensation for damages, which, according to the applicant, arise from the Commission's decision of 20 July 1999 to terminate his contract with the Humanitarian Aid Department of the European Community (ECHO) that he signed on 1 July 1999 after passing the medical examination provided for in the contract.

In support of his application the applicant claims principally that:

| — | the contract was terminated on the basis of an examination of his medical problems which was conducted without using up to date information and therefore without taking account of his current state of health; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contract was terminated on the basis of an examination of his medical problems which was conducted without using up to date information and therefore without taking account of his current state of health;

| — | he did not receive any answer to the series of letters sent to the responsible persons at ECHO in order to rectify the earlier error. |
| --- | --- |

—

he did not receive any answer to the series of letters sent to the responsible persons at ECHO in order to rectify the earlier error.

| — | the Commission breached the terms of the contract stipulating that it could enter into force only when the employee's state of health had been positively evaluated. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission breached the terms of the contract stipulating that it could enter into force only when the employee's state of health had been positively evaluated.

| — | the Commission infringed his rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission infringed his rights of defence.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2202

In connection with the Annual Report of Globetel Communications Corp. (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"), we,
Timothy Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas Y. Jimenez,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to our knowledge:

1.   the Report fully complies with the requirement 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.


Thomas Y. Jimenez
Chief Financial Officer
April 27, 2004
**Exhibit32.2**

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

I, John P.Sanders, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of Westaff,Inc. (the “Company”), that, to the best of my knowledge;

(1)             TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 14,2007 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)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:       May29, 2007

By:    /s/ John P. Sanders             John P. Sanders*Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*

A signed original of this written statement requiredby § 906 has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 55015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18741]



                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 55015]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2005-34 of September 9, 
                2005

                
Waiving Prohibition on United States Military 
                Assistance with Respect to Benin

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 
                2007 of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 
                2002 (the ``Act''), title II of Public Law 107-206 (22 
                U.S.C. 7421 et seq.), I hereby

 Determine that Benin has entered into an agreement with the United States 
pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International 
Criminal Court from proceeding against U.S. personnel present in such 
country; and

 Waive the prohibition of section 2007(a) of the Act with respect to this 
country for as long as such agreement remains in force.

                You are authorized and directed to report this 
                determination to the Congress and to arrange for its 
                publication in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 9, 2005.

[FR Doc. 05-18741
Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3819 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Community Job Creators 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO DEBT INSTRUMENTS.

    Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1851) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to require the divestiture of any collateralized debt 
obligations issued before December 10, 2013, that as of December 10, 
2013, are predominantly backed by trust-preferred securities.''.
                                 <all>
```
Daniel and Lisa Holt, Administrators of the Estate of Hunter Daniel Holt; Steven Grier Price, Individually; Steven Grier Price, Administrator of the Estate of McAllister Grier Furr Price; and Steven Grier Price, Administrator of the Estate of Cynthia Jean Furr v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

No. 76A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed September 23, 2016

DeVore Acton & Stafford PA, Charlotte, by Fred W. DeVore, III, F. William DeVore IV, and Derek P. Adler, for Price plaintiff-appellees.

*459Rawls Scheer Foster & Mingo PLLC, Charlotte, by Amanda A. Mingo, for Holt plaintiff-appellees.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Melody R. Hairston and Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest
      Financial Group, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      for
      the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “ Periodic
      Report ”),
      the
      undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant
      to
      Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and
      belief, that the Periodic 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 the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      August 11, 2006




/s/
                Douglas J. HerthaDouglas
                J. HerthaChief
                Financial Officer****
# C_2008051EN.01003001.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/30

---

Order of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-163/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public works contracts - Admissibility - Essential procedural conditions - Mandatory representation of natural or legal persons by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State - Appeal clearly unfounded)

(2008/C 51/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar (represented by: C. Șahin, lawyer)

Applicants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and F. Hoffmeister, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2007 in Case T-129/06 Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Akar v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application for, first, the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2005 relating to the award of the public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir and, secondly, suspension of the implementation of the procedure in question — No information, in the contested decision, as to the need to be represented by a lawyer qualified to practise before a court of a Member State in the event of proceedings being brought against the contested decision — Regularised application lodged out of time.

Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Akar

Commission

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
# C_2008064EN.01003201.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/32

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Tesco Stores Ltd v MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-493/06 P) (1)

1

(2008/C 64/47)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Frank and Humphreys 

Argued by teleconference 

MARGARET A. PARKS 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 1991-07-1 CHIEF JUDGE WALTER S. FELTON, JR. 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

DENNIS W. PARKS 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY 

N. Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge 

 Paul H. Wilson (Wilson & Wilson, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 Dennis W. Parks, pro se. 

 Margaret A. Parks (wife) appeals from the trial court’s July 31, 2007 final equitable 

distribution order. On appeal, wife contends the trial court erred by: (1) awarding wife credit for 

only a 1.5% commission on the sale of husband’s prior home and the purchase of the marital home; 

(2) requiring husband to pay one-half the value of stocks at the time of sale rather than one-half the 

value of stocks at the time the assets were to have been conveyed to wife; and (3) giving husband a 

post-separation credit for principal reduction on the mortgage of the marital home. 

 On appeal, wife presents no legal authority in support of her three arguments. 

Rule 5A:20(e) provides that the opening brief shall include “[t]he principles of law, the argument, 

and the authorities relating to each question presented . . . . ” (Emphasis added). “Statements 

unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not permit appellate 

consideration.” Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 302 n.7, 605 S.E.2d 268, 275 n.7 (2004) (citing 

Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992)). The Supreme Court 

recently announced that when a party’s “failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of 
- 2 - 

Rule 5A:20(e)” is significant, “the Court of Appeals may . . . treat a question presented as waived.” 

Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008). Here, we find wife’s failure 

to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) as to each question presented to be significant. Accordingly, wife’s 

questions presented are waived, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed without opinion as to 

whether error exists in the record. 

Affirmed.
# C_2009090EN.01002502.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM — Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)

(Case T-168/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY as a Community trade mark - Earlier national and Community figurative mark RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and earlier national figurative mark RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 90/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. (Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, United States) (represented by: M. Vanhegan and B. Brandreth, Barristers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Zarobe, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL and Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136915 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: 136915 

 COA: 284481 

Jackson CC: 06-004837-FC 

JAMES VERNON HUGHES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2010024EN.01000501.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-540/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Withholding at source on outgoing dividends - Set-off at the place of establishment of the recipient of the dividend, pursuant to a convention for the avoidance of double taxation)

2010/C 24/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Aresu, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: R. Adam, Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 EC and 40 EEA — Tax system more onerous, for dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States and in EEA States, than that applied to ‘domestic’ dividends

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by making dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States subject to a less favourable tax regime than that applied to dividends distributed to resident companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by making dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States subject to a less favourable tax regime than that applied to dividends distributed to resident companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay three quarters of the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the remaining quarter. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay three quarters of the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the remaining quarter.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
Bryan HAYNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF THE ARTS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. COA15-758.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE v. ROBINSON.

No. COA07-1316.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS30577, 06CRS30579).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part and remanded in part.
# C_2008051EN.01002902.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/29

---

Order of the Court of 26 October 2007 — PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-512/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Word mark ‘map&guide’)

(2008/C 51/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanswalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03, PTV v OHIM (map&guide), dismissing the action for annulment of the decision which refused the application for registration of the word mark ‘map&guide’ in respect of certain goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Distinctiveness of the mark

PTV

OHIM

map&guide

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---