alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020061EN.01001601.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV v Finanzamt Cuxhaven

(Case C-715/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Point 12 of Annex III - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the letting of places on camping or caravan sites - Question of whether that reduced rate is applicable to the letting of boat moorings in a marina - Comparison with the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles - Equal treatment - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2020/C 61/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV

Respondent: Finanzamt Cuxhaven

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 12 of Annex III thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that the reduced rate of value added tax, envisaged in that provision, for the letting of places on camping or caravan sites is not applicable to the letting of boat moorings.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---
**Exhibit10.4**

 

**AMENDMENT TO**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This AMENDMENT, dated as of November 6, 2007,between Answers Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (the “**Company**”) and Bruce Smith, an individual (“Executive”),amends that Employment Agreement dated July 27th, 2005 (the “**Employment Agreement**”).

 

1.               Effective June19, 2007, the Executive has been promoted to the position of Chief StrategicOfficer of the Company.

 

2.               Pursuant tothis Amendment, the parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

Subsection 2.1, “**Voluntary Termination By Either Party”** ofthe Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced withthe following:

 

**2.1****Voluntary Termination By Either Party.****Either party may terminate the Executive’s employmentwith the Company without cause at any time upon three (3) months writtennotice. The Company shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to requireExecutive to continue working for the Company during the notice period.  If the Company terminates the Executive withoutcause pursuant to this Section 2.1 the Board of Directors shall take thenecessary steps so that the period during which the Executive shall bepermitted to exercise his stock options to purchase shares of common stock ofthe Parent in accordance with the Parent’s employee stock option plan(s) as ineffect from time to time (the “Options”), shall be extended to the shorter of(a) one (1) year from the effective date of his termination or (b) theexpiration date of the options.**

 

3.               The effectivedate of this Amendment shall be the date first written above.

 

4.               Terms used inthis Amendment but not defined herein will have the respective meaningsascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.  In the event of any conflict between theterms of this Amendment and the terms of the Employment Agreement, thisAmendment shall control.  Except asmodified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full forceand effect.
| **AGREED  AND ACCEPTED:** | ** **         | **AGREED AND ACCEPTED:**           |
|---------------------------|--------------------|------------------------------------|
| ** **                | ** **         | ** **                         |
| **Bruce Smith**           | ** **         | **GuruNet Israel Ltd.**            |
| ** **                | ** **         | ** **                         |
| **Signature:**            | /s/ Bruce D. Smith | ** **                         | **Signature:** | /s/  Steven Steinberg |
|                      |               |                               |
| ** **                | ** **         | **Name: Steven Steinberg**         |
| ** **                | ** **         | **Title: Chief Financial Officer** |
|                      |               |                               |
|                           |                    |                                    |  |  |

** **

** **

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-05941 and 333-24471) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option/Stock 
Issuance Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Infoseek Corporation of our 
report dated January 16, 1998, except for Note 12, as to which the date is 
February 12, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of Infoseek 
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended 
December 31, 1997.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Infoseek 
Corporation listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the 
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our 
audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, 
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, 
present fairly, in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
March 12, 1998
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin R. Callahan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Date: November 10, 2008



/s/ Kevin R.
CallahanKevin R. CallahanChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned,as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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.

 
|   | /s/  Paul Block          |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Paul  Block              |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | November 18,  2008  |

 

 

----
#### Town of Brookhaven, Respondent, v Drew Cass, Doing Business as Active Appliance, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 889]

In *626an action, *inter alia,*for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from using the front and side yards of his property for the outdoor storage of appliances, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated September 10, 1999, as granted the plaintiff’s motion to punish him for civil contempt of court based on his failure to comply with a prior order of the same court (DiPaola, J.), dated September 19, 1985, and directed that he be incarcerated for a term of six months, unless he purged himself of his contempt by completing 840 hours of community service and by paying a sanction in the sum of $11,400 to the County Treasurer, an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff, and costs in the sum of $250.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and a new determination in accordance herewith.

In support of its motion to punish the defendant for civil contempt, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had violated an injunction contained in an order dated September 19, 1985, which, *inter alia,*enjoined him from using the subject property for the outdoor storage of appliances. In opposition, the defendant submitted an affidavit which sufficiently raised a question of fact as to whether he violated that order. As a result, the issues of whether the defendant violated the injunction, and whether he should be punished therefor, should not have been summarily determined (see, *Seven Hanover Sq. Corp. v Kaufman,*81 AD2d 789; *see also, Composite Panel Fabricators v Webb,*133 AD2d 333).

The appellant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Gold-stein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Program Administrative Close-Out

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the administrative close-out of the 
Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Program (the Program). All business 
concerning petitions and related payment documentation associated with 
the Program will conclude on October 31, 2005.
    As of that date, the Program will cease to accept or process any 
additional documentation submitted by individuals (or their 
representatives) relating to the eligibility or payment of petitions 
still pending. Remaining funds will be returned to the United States 
Treasury, and the Program will archive all outstanding documentation at 
the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland, in 
accordance with the requirements of the National Archives and Records 
Administration.

DATES: Effective Date: October 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Program, Healthcare Systems 
Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-06, 
Rockville, Maryland 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul T. Clark, Director, Ricky Ray 
Hemophilia Relief Fund Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-06, 
Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2330.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Program implemented the Ricky Ray 
Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1998 (the Act), Pub. Law 105-369. The Act 
established a Trust Fund to provide compassionate payments to 
individuals with blood-clotting disorders, such as hemophilia, who were 
treated with antihemophilic factor between July 1, 1982 and December 
31, 1987, and contracted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as well as 
to certain persons who contracted HIV from these individuals. In the 
event individuals eligible for payment were deceased, the Act also 
provided for payments to certain survivors of these individuals.
    Under section 101(d) of the Act, the Trust Fund terminated on 
November 12, 2003. The Act requires all remaining funds to be deposited 
in the miscellaneous receipts account in the Treasury of the United 
States.
    The Program has made compassionate payments totaling in excess of 
$559 million to more than 7,171 eligible individuals and survivors.

    Dated: September 22, 2005.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-19430 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
ARMSTRONG v. NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

40P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Arthur O. Armstrong, for Armstrong, Arthur O.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of March 2018 by Plaintiff for Leave to File a Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0450 

Issued: June 7, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On January 11, 2016 appellant filed an application for review, from an October 26, 2015 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied her traumatic 

injury claim. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In William A. Couch,1

 the Board held that, when 

adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by 

appellant and received before the final decision is issued. 

In this case, on October 26, 2015, OWCP issued a merit decision denying appellant’s 

claim for a traumatic injury. It denied appellant’s claim finding that the medical evidence did not 

establish that appellant’s condition was related to established work-related events. OWCP 

specifically found that appellant had not submitted any medical evidence containing a medical 

diagnosis in connection with the injury and/or work-related events. It noted that appellant had 

been advised of the deficiencies in her claim in a September 25, 2015 letter. OWCP listed the 

documents it had received subsequent to the letter. However, it did not list, include, or reference 

an August 5, 2015 report of Dr. Shabrez Tariq, a Board-certified internist, which was received by 

 1

 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990). 
2

OWCP on October 13, 2015. The Board notes that Dr. Tariq described appellant’s work injury, 

provided results on examination, and provided an opinion on causal relationship. 

The Board finds that at the time OWCP issued its October 26, 2015 decision, it had not 

reviewed all the evidence in the record. Although appellant had provided medical information in 

response to OWCP’s request for additional medical information OWCP had not reviewed all the 

evidence. Accordingly, the case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider all 

the evidence submitted at the time of the October 26, 2015 decision. Following such further 

development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an appropriate merit decision on 

appellant’s claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 26, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order. 

Issued: June 7, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### STATE ex rel. Michael COLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2276.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Collins, Michael; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10,618; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 0091.

Denied.
Tatita M. SANCHEZ v. COBBLESTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF CLAYTON, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation

Frank Christopher v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation

Vincent Franks, Jr. v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation

Robert Sain and Jennifer Sain v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation

Dennis Draughon and Megan Draughon v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation

No. 374A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2018

*ORDER*

Morgan, J.

The Court determines that the record in this case is too sparse for adequate judicial *145review and provides an insufficient basis upon which to create binding precedent. We note that appellants have not challenged any of the trial court's findings of fact, and we decline to upset the ruling of the trial court on this record. We express no opinion on the merits of the issues presented in this case but instead dismiss the appeal and exercise our constitutional and inherent authority to order that the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, *Sanchez v. Cobblestone Homeowners Ass'n of Clayton, Inc.* , --- N.C. App. ----, 791 S.E.2d 238 (2016), has no precedential value.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 6th day of April, 2018.
STATE of North Carolina v. Aaron JACKSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-939

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES, New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1599 

Issued: November 24, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On July 22, 2015 appellant filed an application for review of a January 23, 2015 merit 

decision and a June 11, 2015 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP). 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In the case of William A. Couch,

1

 the Board held that 

when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a 

claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. Appellant filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that she was assaulted by a coworker. In letters dated December 23, 2014, 

OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence addressing the traumatic injury claim 

from appellant and the employing establishment. Appellant responded with a series of medical 

reports and an undated factual statement received by OWCP on January 22, 2015. By decision 

dated January 23, 2015, OWCP denied her claim because she had not responded to the factual 

questions posed by OWCP on December 23, 2014. It stated that appellant had not described the 

events immediately preceding or leading up to the assault and had not stated whether there was 

any animosity between she and her assailant. 

 1

 41 ECAB 548 (1990). 
2

The Board finds that OWCP had not reviewed appellant’s undated factual statement 

received on January 22, 2015 prior to issuing its January 23, 2015 decision. For this reason, the 

case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider all the evidence submitted at 

the time of the January 23, 2015 decision. Following such further development as OWCP deems 

necessary, it shall issue an appropriate merit decision on the claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 11 and January 23, 2015 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for 

further proceeding consistent with the order. 

Issued: November 24, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Fred M. Powell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Beijing Med-Pharm Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   FRED M. POWELL   Fred M. Powell  Chief Financial Officer     Date: August 29, 2005  
40
IN RE: J.T.S.

No. COA17-1283

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.