alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013009EN.01001802.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Council of the European Union v Nadiany Bamba, European Commission

(Case C-417/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Article 296 TFEU - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Right to an effective legal remedy - Right to respect for property)

2013/C 9/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and B. Driessen and by E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Nadiany Bamba, (represented: initially by P. Haïk, and subsequently by P. Maisonneuve, lawyers), European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and É. Ranaivoson, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council in which the General Court annulled Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern Ms Nadiany Bamba — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law

Bamba

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council;

| 2. | Dismisses Ms Bamba’s action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses Ms Bamba’s action;

| 3. | Orders Ms Bamba to pay, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in connection with the present appeal and at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Bamba to pay, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in connection with the present appeal and at first instance;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---
AAM-11-271-E 

April 18, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10250 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0369 

Mr. John Larson 

Honey B, LLC 

5695 SW Airport Place 

Corvallis, OR 97333 

Dear Mr. Larson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By submission dated April 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Honey B, LLC (Honey B) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Honey B, which is 

operating under separate parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one 

drug testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Honey B. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Honey B, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the extent 

necessary to allow Honey B, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and 

limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Honey B are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Honey B part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.12




Summary Description of the 2015 Directors Compensation Program


Members of the Company’s Board of Directors who are not Company employees receive an annual retainer of $85,000, which is intended to cover all regularly scheduled meetings of the Board and its committees. If additional meetings are held, a per-meeting fee of $1,500 will be paid to each attending director.


The Chairs of Board committees receive additional annual retainers. For the Chair of the Audit Committee, the retainer is $20,000; for the Chair of the Board Affairs and Nominating Committee, the retainer is $10,000; and for the Chair of the Compensation Committee, the retainer is $15,000. The retainer for the Lead Director is $25,000.


All independent directors also receive an annual deferred stock unit grant. The number of shares covered by each grant is equal to $145,000 (based on the 200-day average stock price as of January 31, in the year of the grant, a methodology consistent with the calculation for other executive equity awards), rounded up to the next ten-share increment. The deferred stock units are settled upon termination of service as a director. Directors may also defer their annual retainers, committee chair retainers, and meeting fees in a deferred stock unit account.


A director who is an employee of Grainger or any Grainger subsidiary does not receive any retainer fees for Board or Board committee service, Board or Board committee meeting attendance fees, or stock options or stock units under the Director Stock Plan.


Stock ownership guidelines applicable to non-employees directors were established in 1998. These guidelines provide that within five years after election, a director must own Grainger common stock and common stock equivalents having a value of at least five times the annual retainer fee for serving on the Board.
<PAGE>

                                     Exhibit

                              Item 14. (a)(3) 3(c)


<PAGE>


                                                                          PAGE 1
                                State of Delaware
                        Office of the Secretary of State

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


     I, EDWARD J. FREEL,  SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THE  ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE  CERTIFICATE  OF LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY OF "TELMARK LLC", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY
OF JUNE, A.D. 1998, AT 9 O'CLOCK A.M.


















                  (secretary's office)
                        (seal)               /S/ EDWARD J. FREEL
                      (Delaware)             ___________________________________
                                             Edward J. Freel, Secretary of State

2913139 8100                                  AUTHENTICATION:           9161461
981246465                                     DATE:                     06-25-98



<PAGE>


                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
                                       OF
                                   TELMARK LLC

         This  Certificate of Formation of Telmark LLC (the "LLC"),  dated as of
June 24,  1998,  is being duly  executed and filed by Daniel J.  Edinger,  as an
authorized  person,  to form a limited  liability  company  under  the  Delaware
Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del.C.ss. 18-101, et seq.).

         FIRST.  The name of the limited liability company is Telmark LLC.

         SECOND. The address of the registered office of the LLC in the State of
Delaware  is  Corporation  Trust  Center,  1209  Orange  Street,  in the City of
Wilmington, County of New Castle.

         THIRD.  The  name  of its  registered  agent  or  such  address  is The
Corporation Trust Company.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  Certificate of
Formation of Telmark LLC as of the date first above written.




                                                           /S/DANIEL J. EDINGER
                                                           ---------------------
                                                           Daniel J. Edinger
                                                           Authorized Person
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between Lumos Networks Operating Company, a
Delaware corporation, Lumos Networks Corp., a Delaware corporation, and Lumos Payroll Corp., a Virginia corporation (collectively, the “Company”), and Johan G. Broekhuysen (the “Executive”), dated as of October 3, 2014 (the
“Agreement”), is made and entered into and shall be effective as of March 4, 2016. 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive
desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Employment Term. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by each of the parties, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

2. Employment Term. The “Employment Term” hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date and continue in full
force and effect until April 30, 2018 unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Thereafter, the Employment Term will renew hereunder automatically for successive one-year periods unless either party gives
written notice to the other not less than six (6) months prior to the end of Employment Term hereof (or any subsequent anniversary, as the case may be) that such party does not wish the Employment Term to be so extended, and under such
circumstances, the Employment Term and this Agreement will terminate by its terms, and without liability to either party, on April 30, 2018 (or such subsequent anniversary, as the case may be). Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon the occurrence
of a “Change in Control” (as such term is defined in Section 4(e)(iii)), the Employment Term shall be automatically extended so that the Employment Term shall continue in full force and effect until the date which is twenty-four
(24) months from the date of a Change in Control and thereafter will renew automatically as of such date and successive one-year periods thereafter, unless prior notice is given, as provided above. 

3. All capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 

4. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement is and shall remain in full force and effect. 

(Signatures appear on the following page) 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company have executed this Amendment as of the
date first shown above. 
  

							
	THE EXECUTIVE:	 		 	THE COMPANY:
			
	Johan G. Broekhuysen	 		 	LUMOS NETWORKS OPERATING COMPANY
				
	 /s/ Johan G. Broekhuysen
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Timothy G. Biltz

	Address:	 		 	Name:	 	Timothy G. Biltz
		 		 	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
			
		 		 	LUMOS NETWORKS CORP.
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Timothy G. Biltz

		 		 	Name:	 	Timothy G. Biltz
		 		 	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
			
		 		 	LUMOS PAYROLL CORP.
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Timothy G. Biltz

		 		 	Name:	 	Timothy G. Biltz
		 		 	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
### §9072. Pandemic relief for aviation workers

#### (a) Financial assistance for employee wages, salaries, and benefits

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to preserve aviation jobs and compensate air carrier industry workers, the Secretary shall provide financial assistance that shall exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits to—

(1) passenger air carriers, in an aggregate amount up to $25,000,000,000;

(2) cargo air carriers, in the aggregate amount up to $4,000,000,000; and

(3) contractors, in an aggregate amount up to $3,000,000,000.

#### (b) Administrative expenses

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary, may use $67,000,000 of the funds made available under section 9080(a) 1 of this title for costs and administrative expenses associated with providing financial assistance under this part.

(Pub. L. 116–136, div. A, title IV, §4112, Mar. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 498; Pub. L. 117–328, div. LL, §102(d)(1)(B), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 6103.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–328 substituted "$67,000,000" for "$100,000,000".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2022 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–328 effective upon issuance of guidance or the promulgation of a rule by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, see section 102(c) of Pub. L. 117–328, set out as a note under secton 802 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

1 So in original. There is no subsec. (a) in section 9080 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meetings.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that closed meetings of the Department of Defense Wage Committee.

# DATES:

Tuesday, April 5, 2011, and Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 10 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.

Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

Dated: March 8, 2011.

Morgan F. Park,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2011-5907 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
ex-10.1

 

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 

 

 February 9, 2016
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Nogales Resources Corp., a Nevada Corporation, promises to pay Misael Aguirre, on or before December 31, 2018, the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) in the currency of the United States, plus simple interest on the principal amount of this Promissory Note accrued at a rate of 6% per annum.
 

 

 Time shall be the essence of this Promissory Note.
 

 This Promissory Note shall be governed by and constituted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada.
 

 

 NOGALES RESOURCES CORP.
 

 

 Per /s/ Misael Velasco Aguirre
      Misael Velasco Aguirre, Pres., CEO, CFO
§ 35.21 Applicability to licensees and others subject to section 19 or 20 of the Federal Power Act. Upon further order of this Commission issued upon its own motion or upon complaint or request by any person or State within the meaning of sections 19 or 20 of the Federal Power Act, the provisions of §§ 35.1 through 35.19 shall be operative as to any licensee or others who are subject to this Commission's jurisdiction in respect to services and the rates and charges of payment therefor by reason of the requirements of sections 19 or 20 of the Federal Power Act. The requirement of this section for compliance with the provisions of §§ 35.1 through 35.19 shall be in addition to and independent of any obligation for compliance with those regulations by reason of the provisions of sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act. For purposes of applying this section *Electric Service* as otherwise defined in § 35.2(a) shall mean: Services to customers or consumers of power within the meaning of sections 19 or 20 of the Federal Power Act which may be comprised of various classes of capacity and energy and/or transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission. *Electric Service* shall include the utilization of facilities owned or operated by any licensee or others to effect any of the foregoing sales or services whether by leasing or other arrangements. As defined herein *Electric Service* is without regard to the form of payment or compensation for the sales or services rendered, whether by purchase and sale, interchange, exchange, wheeling charge, facilities charge, rental or otherwise. For purposes of applying this section, *Rate Schedule* as otherwise defined in § 35.2(b) shall mean: A statement of ( 1 ) Electric service as defined in this § 35.21,
( 2 ) Rates and charges for or in connection with that service, and
( 3 ) All classifications, practices, rules, regulations, or contracts which in any manner affect or relate to the aforementioned service, rates and charges. This statement shall be in writing and may take the physical form of a contractual document, purchase or sale agreement, lease of facilities, tariff[5] or other writing. Any oral agreement or understanding forming a part of such statement shall be reduced to writing and made a part thereof.
[Order 271, 28 FR 10573, Oct. 2, 1963, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57533, Oct. 3, 2008] Footnotes -
35.21
[5] See § 35.2.
P.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

15DIV-E-24 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:55 PM Sheet 151 of 242 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 

FEB 9 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR ANO RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with Mitsubishi Chemical Regarding Onboard 

Proposal 

FROM: 

TO: 

Kathleen A. Steilen, Chemical Engineer ^"KP-^^JLLS.••> \ (•? x^t2-

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Docket A-87-11 

n 

THRU: Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager VZJ.^W V >0 \aji/U^rr^\ 

Standards Development and Support* .Branch 

Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development an^Sup, anch 

On February 3, 1988, I met with Ken Von Hertsenberg and 

Goichi Okubo of Mitsubishi International Corporation and Akira 

Ikeda of Mitsubishi Chemical Industries Limited at EPA's Motor 

Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann Arbor regarding EPA's 

refueling proposal. Mitsubishi Chemical is an activated carbon 

supplier to motor vehicle manufacturers in Japan. At this 

meeting, we discussed the onboard proposal and I answered any 

of their related questions. In addition, we discussed the 

subject of carbon availability. They had received a letter 

from EPA asking them to respond to some concerns from 

Congressman Dingell pertaining to the carbon availability for 

refueling controls. They felt that if motor vehicle 

manufacturers required their highest quality activated carbon 

for refueling controls (i.e., similar to that now demanded by 

the Japanese manufacturers for evaporative systems), then the 

availability of this carbon could be a problem with only two 

years leadtime. They were planning to address these concerns 

in more detail in their^**esponse,ritp^£pj)g.ressman Dingell. 

]Q- S. i 831 

•j'3 } .