alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008223EN.01000901.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-484/06) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - First and Sixth VAT directives - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Rules concerning rounding of amounts of VAT - Rounding down per item)

(2008/C 223/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a), Article 22(3)(b), first sentence, and Article 22(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and Article 2, first and second paragraphs, of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) — Rules on the rounding off of amounts of value added tax

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of the tax on added value, but those States must, when making that decision, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of the tax on added value, but those States must, when making that decision, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality;

| 2. | Community law, as it now stands, entails no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of the tax on added value. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Community law, as it now stands, entails no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of the tax on added value.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1829]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group, 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review Committee.
    Date: March 17, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Jeffrey H. Hurst, PhD, Review Branch, Division 
of Extramural Affairs, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/
NIH, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 7208, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-
0303, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#29415c5b5a5d43694741454b4007474041074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cea6bbbcbdbaa48ea0a6a2aca7e0a0a7a6e0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-1829 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Financial Officer 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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GigaBeam
        Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
“Report”), the undersigned as Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
        hereby, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (i)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 (ii)
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 /s/Leighton
        J. Stephenson
 Name:
        Leighton J. Stephenson
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 Date:
        November 14, 2005
Rodney Parker, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 12, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 7, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Perry M. Buckner, III be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Buckner shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Buckner shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
Edgar Leron Thomas, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 8, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on June 30, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable D. Craig Brown be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Brown shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Brown shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          76,241
<SECURITIES>                                     6,005
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,092
<INVENTORY>                                     28,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,677
<PP&E>                                          43,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,190
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       191,044
<OTHER-SE>                                    (72,472)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,515
<SALES>                                        319,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               319,758
<CGS>                                          144,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  144,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               214,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,783)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (73,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (73,045)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.15)
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

JOINT FILING STATEMENT 
 I, the
undersigned, hereby express my agreement that the attached Schedule 13D (and any amendments thereto) relating to the Common Stock of Telik, Inc. is filed on behalf of each of the undersigned. 

Date: July 17, 2014 
  

			
	RTP VENTURE FUND, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Philip O. Livingston

	Name:	 	 Philip O. Livingston, M.D.

	Title:	 	 Manager

	
	JOAN L. TWEEDY 2011 REVOCABLE TRUST
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Philip O. Livingston

	Name:	 	 Philip O. Livingston, M.D.

	Title:	 	 Trustee




 

			
	 /s/ Philip O. Livingston

	Philip O. Livingston, M.D.
-1-

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

FRANCES JEAN HERNANDEZ, )

 )

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Appeal No.

 ) M1999-00967-COA-R3-CV

v. )

 ) Davidson County Circuit Court

PHILLIP ANDREUS HERNANDEZ, ) No. 97D-2557

 )

Defendant/Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE DAVIDSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

HONORABLE MARIETTA SHIPLEY, JUDGE

Joy Marie Sims and Kathy A. Leslie, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Robert Wheeler Rutherford, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

INMAN, Senior Judge

The appellant owned an undivided one-third interest in a residence prior to his marriage to

the appellee. They occupied the residence for about two years, during which time the evidence

reveals that the appellee engaged herself in constant repairs, thereby increasing the liveability and

value of the residence. She was awarded 75% of the increase in the value of this residence during

the marriage, of which the appellant complains. 
1Affirmance Without Opinion - Memorandum Opinion. (b) The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of

the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. 

When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM

OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a

subsequent unrelated case. [As amended by order filed April 22, 1992.]

-2-

Appellant also complains of the award of attorney fees to the appellee, although recognizing

that such an award is in the nature of alimony and thus essentially discretionary with the trial court.

Our standard of review is de novo on the record, with a presumption of correctness unless

the evidence otherwise preponderates. Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.

We conclude that this is a proper case for affirmance pursuant to Rule 10, Rules of the Court

of Appeals.1 Costs are assessed to the appellant.

___________________________________

INMAN, Sr. J.

___________________________________

CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

___________________________________

LILLARD, J.
State of North Carolina v. Jamario Jermaine McClure

No. 130P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for McClure, Jamario Jermaine.

Bethany A. Burgon, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Exhibit 32.1
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 which this
statement accompanies 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Fentura Financial, Inc.
  /s/Donald L. GrillDonald L. GrillChief Executive Officer and President/s/Douglas J. KelleyDouglas J. KelleyChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32

                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                                        
$400,000                                                            JUNE 8, 1998

     As hereinafter stated, for value received Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Carl Westcott in Dallas, Texas the
sum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars, payable on demand with interest at the
rate of prime per annum from the date of this Promissory Note. This Promissory
Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Amounts due under this
Promissory Note from and after it is due shall bear interest at the highest
lawful rate.

     We, the makers, sureties, endorsers and guarantors of this Promissory Note,
hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
and notice of protest and diligence of bringing suit for collection, and consent
that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof to any of the
makers, sureties, endorsers or guarantors of this Promissory Note. It is further
expressly agreed that if this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of an
attorney for collection, or suit is brought on same, or is collected through the
Probate Court, then, and in that event, the makers, sureties, endorsers and
guarantors will pay the holder of this Promissory Note the costs of collection,
including but not limited to the attorney's fees, incurred by the holder of this
Promissory Note.


     MAKER:                        /s/ Douglas B. Theodore
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   By: Douglas Theodore
                                   For Jayhawk Medical Acceptance Corporation
# C_2010024EN.01007202.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/72

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Rainer Wenning v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-114/07) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Europol staff - Renewal of contract of a member of the contract staff of Europol - Article 6 of the Europol Staff Regulations - Assessment report)

2010/C 24/131

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rainer Wenning (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: B. Exterkate and D. El Khoury, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers, and subsequently by D. El Khoury and D. Neumann, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of Europol of 21 December 2006 not to renew the applicant’s contract and not to reinstate him, and an order that Europol renew the applicant’s contract for a period of 4 years from 1 October 2007 and pay damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 47.

1

---
# C_2008051EN.01001402.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-186/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida))

(2008/C 51/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Plan to irrigate the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal (Lleida)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising the irrigation project in the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal in the Province of Lleida, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds to take appropriate measures to avoid, in the areas affected by that project which ought to have been classified as special protection areas, the prohibited disturbances; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising the irrigation project in the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal in the Province of Lleida, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds to take appropriate measures to avoid, in the areas affected by that project which ought to have been classified as special protection areas, the prohibited disturbances;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

1

---
STATE v. Antonio Nathan GREENE.

No. 100P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Antonio Nathan Greene, Castle Hayne, for Greene, Antonio Nathan.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of March 2015 by Defendant for the Reappointment of Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
----

----

| 1. | The      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly      Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      August 14, 2008 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                       | By:    | /s/      Vladimir      Fedyunin                              |
|                       |   | Vladimir      Fedyunin                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                       |   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                  |

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 09, 2020. 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, September 09, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0033. RENASANT CORPORATION et al. v. DEAN A KORST.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV327307