alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008064EN.01000901.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma

(Case C-257/06) (1)

1

(Article 28 EC - Directive 76/768/EEC - Protection of health - Cosmetic products - Importation - Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation)

(2008/C 64/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Roby Profumi Srl

Appellant:

Respondent: Comune di Parma

Respondent:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32) — Ready-for-sale products imported from other Member States — National provisions requiring importers to communicate a full and detailed list of the substances contained in the product

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, does not preclude a national provision which, in the interests of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, requires the importer of cosmetic products to communicate to the Ministry of Health and to the Region the name or the corporate name of the business, its registered office and that of the manufacturing plant, and a full and detailed list of the substances used and the substances contained in those products.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
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 Annual  Report of Globetel  Communications  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Timothy Huff, Chief Executive  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 my 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.


                                         /s/ Timothy M. Huff
                                         Timothy Huff
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         March 31, 2006
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification ofChief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the periodicreport of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended July 10, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Dwight S. Pedersen, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely forpurposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable 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 at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: August  24, 2004 |   |                                   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                   |   |                                   |
|                   | By:    | /s/ Dwight S. Pedersen                 |   |
|                   |   |  Dwight S. Pedersen               |   |
|                   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 08, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 08, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0471. ATLANTA USED CARS, INC. v. MICHAEL SHENKER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15A01963
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 19, 2022

No. 04-22-00195-CV

Glenn A. ROUSCH,

Appellant

v.

Robert TAYLOR,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV03286

Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 11, 2022. Neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed. We order appellant to file, on or before July 29, 2022, his 

appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining (1) his failure to timely file the 

brief and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. 

If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, his appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) 

(allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
##### 



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 Viewpoint
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Anthony L. Pane, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my
knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report to which this certification
    is attached as an exhibit, 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.                            



| |     |                    
| | --- | -------------------
| | By: | /s/ ANTHONY L. PANE

| |                          
| | -------------------------
| |                          
| | Anthony L. Pane          
| | Senior Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer  

Dated: June 5, 2003
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136195 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: 136195 

 COA: 282207 

Wayne CC: 92-013230-01

PHILLIP HERNDON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2008 

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s0915 

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
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 11, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13231

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 94-00262-CR-SH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, JR., 

a.k.a. Tony, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 11, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Antonio Hernandez, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion for relief from his criminal judgment.

Hernandez was convicted under a third superseding indictment of conspiracy to

commit murder for hire, arson, and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; use

of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1958; and arson, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). The district

court’s docket sheet reflected Hernandez’s convictions, and it also indicated that

all of the counts that were charged in the original indictment had been dismissed. 

In his motion and in this appeal, Hernandez interprets the docket sheet to mean

that the district court dismissed all of the charges against him, which would mean

that he is serving time for a “non-conviction.” On that basis he argues that the

district court should have granted his motion for relief from judgment.

Although Hernandez did not state under which statute or rule he was

bringing this claim, “[t]ypically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal

sentence must be brought under § 2255.” Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942,

944 (11th Cir. 2005). If we construe Hernandez’s motion to dismiss that way, that

motion is itself due to be dismissed because Hernandez had previously filed two §

2255 motions in the district court, which forecloses him from filing another one 

without our authorization to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 
3

In any event, and regardless of how the motion is construed, it utterly lacks

merit. The docket sheet, on which Hernandez relies, shows that he was convicted

of, and sentenced on, Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment. The 

Counts 1, 2, 3, 4-11, and 12 that the docket sheet shows were dismissed were

counts of the original indictment, not counts of the superseding indictment. 

AFFIRMED.
logo
Exhibit 10.43
 
 
 August 31, 2010
 
 Ronald W. Johnston
 
 Dear Ron,
 
 This letter serves as an amendment to your employment agreement with Tier Technologies, Inc. dated July 1, 2008 (the "Employment Agreement”). As of the date you execute this amendment, you hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:
 
 1.  Delete the first sentence of Section 2, Term of Employment, and replace with the following:
  "The Company hereby continues to employ the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts such continued employment, for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on August 16, 2013, subject to earlier termination of the Term of Employment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement."
 
 2.  Revise the first sentence of Section 11(c) as follows: (i) replace "thirtieth (30th)" with "sixtieth (60th)" and (ii) insert at the end of the sentence “, which release must become effective and irrevocable no later than the sixtieth (60th) calendar day following the date of termination."
 
 Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect, including but not limited to your obligations under the Proprietary and Confidential Information, Developments, Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Agreement that you signed for the benefit of the Company.
 
  11130 Sunrise Valley Blvd. • Suite 300 • Reston, VA 20191 • Ph: 571-382-1000 • Fax: 571-382-1384
 
 www.tier.com
  This amendment and the Employment Agreement contain the entire understanding and agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements, understandings, discussions, negotiations and undertakings, whether written or oral, with respect thereto.  This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (without reference to the conflict of laws provisions thereof).  This amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.
 
 For and on behalf of
 Tier Technologies, Inc.
 
 /s/ Charles W. Berger
 Charles W. Berger
 Director
 
 
 
 I have read the above amendment to the Employment Agreement, and I voluntarily accept the terms and conditions set forth above.
 
 
 /s/ Ronald W. Johnston

August 31, 2010Ronald W. Johnston

Date
 
  -2-
# C_2009267EN.01001301.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV

(Case C-519/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities - Decision No 2003/515/EC - Incompatibility with the common market - Transitional provision - Admissibility - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest in bringing proceedings - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment)

2009/C 267/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and W. Geursen, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV) v Commission annulling Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had already lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.

Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV)

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
# C_2009069EN.01001302.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

Order of the Court of 28 November 2008 — Philippe Combescot v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-526/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia - Exclusion from competition - Application for damages - Determination of the extent of compensation - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2009/C 69/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and S. Corongiu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-250/04 Combescot v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's application for recognition that the decision excluding him from the competition for appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia was unlawful; dismissed the same application for annulment of the procedure of that competition and of the decision making the appointment to the post concerned; and held that there was only non-material damage, rejecting the claim for compensation for the other heads of damage raised by the appellant.

Combescot

Commission

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Combescot shall pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Combescot shall pay the costs of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
# C_2009006EN.01000502.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-227/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) - Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) - Incorrect transposition)

(2009/C 6/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, T. Nowakowski, and subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7) — National legislation on telecommunications requiring, by way of a general legal provision, operators of public telecommunications networks to negotiate in good faith access contracts and providing that, if the parties do not reach an agreement, the regulatory authority may, at the request of one of the parties, adopt a decision which will replace the contract

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Brian Dewayne McCULLOUGH.

No. COA15-221.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Exhibit 12.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Earnings to Fixed Charges
<S>                                     <C>       <C>    <C>


                                       2002      2003      2004
Earnings:
Income before taxes                   (3990)    25534      40691
Interest                              49254     45413      53185
Interest portion of rental expense     3254      3739       4960
                                      -----     -----     ------
                                      48518     74686      98836

Fixed Charges:
Interest                              49254     45413      53185
Interest capitalized                   (844)     (860)     (1120)
Interest portion of rental expense     3254      3739       4960
                                      -----     -----     ------
                                      51664     48292      57025

Ratio                               .939106  1.546554   1.733209

Shortfall (overage)                    3146    (26394)    (41811)
</TABLE>
State v. Morris Leavett Stith

173A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, for Stith, Morris Leavett.

Charles G. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of June 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."