alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015311EN.01005301.xml

| 26.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 311/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 311/53

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 298/2014

of 12 December 2014

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2015/2165]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2014 of 26 June 2014 on the interchange standard for the transmission of data required under Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European System of national and regional accounts in the European Union (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2014 of 26 June 2014 on the interchange standard for the transmission of data required under Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European System of national and regional accounts in the European Union (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 19z (Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘19za. | 32014 R 0724: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2014 of 26 June 2014 on the interchange standard for the transmission of data required under Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European System of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ L 192, 1.7.2014, p. 38).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘19za.

32014 R 0724: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2014 of 26 June 2014 on the interchange standard for the transmission of data required under Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European System of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ L 192, 1.7.2014, p. 38).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 724/2014 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 13 December 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 12 December 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 192, 1.7.2014, p. 38.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
### §12577. Local application

#### (a) In general

A person who desires a scholarship or employment under this part shall submit an application to the State at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the State may reasonably require.

#### (b) Contents

An application under subsection (a) shall describe—

(1) the academic courses for which a scholarship is sought; or

(2) the location and duration of employment that is sought.

#### (c) Priority

In awarding scholarships and providing student employment under this part, each State shall give priority to applications from persons who are—

(1) members of racial, ethnic, or gender groups whose representation in the law enforcement agencies within the State is substantially less than in the population eligible for employment in law enforcement in the State;

(2) pursuing an undergraduate degree; and

(3) not receiving financial assistance under the Higher Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 103–322, title XX, §200208, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2060.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Higher Education Act of 1965, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is Pub. L. 89–329, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1219, which is classified generally to chapter 28 (§1001 et seq.) of Title 20, Education. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of Title 20 and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14117 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
§ 1216.301 Fees. ( a ) *Generally.* The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs to the MSPB.
( b ) *Fees for records.* Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records, costs of attorney time spent in reviewing the request, and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. Costs for employee time will be calculated on the basis of the hourly pay of the employee (including all pay, allowances, and benefits). Fees for duplication will be the same as those charged by the MSPB in its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 5 CFR part 1204.
( c ) *Witness fees.* Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district closest to the location where the witness will appear and on 28 U.S.C. 1821, as applicable. Such fees will include cost of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, in travel and for attendance in the legal proceeding, plus travel costs.
( d ) *Payment of fees.* A requester must pay witness fees for current MSPB employees and any record certification fees by submitting to the Clerk of the Board a check or money order for the appropriate amount made payable to the Treasury of the United States. In the case of testimony of former MSPB employees, the request must pay applicable fees directly to the former MSPB employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( e ) *Waiver or reduction of fees.* The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.
( f ) *De minimis fees.* Fees will not be assessed if the total charge would be $10.00 or less.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 5, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY C. KENNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-6021

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00463-M)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

After Anthony Kenney filed a drove of frivolous lawsuits in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, that court imposed

certain restrictions on his ability to bring additional actions before it. In an

apparent attempt to circumvent those restrictions, Mr. Kenney set his sights on a

new jurisdiction and filed this suit in the neighboring Western District. After a

*

 After examining Mr. Kenney’s brief and the appellate record, this panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
magistrate judge granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the district

court dismissed Mr. Kenney’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which

requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis actions that “fail[] to state a claim on

which relief may be granted.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

We discern no error in that disposition and so we affirm the district court’s

judgment. Though Mr. Kenney’s complaint appears to allege that Oklahoma

failed to pay him workers’ compensation benefits, it fails to set forth factual

allegations from which we might infer some plausible basis for relief. Mr.

Kenney, who has brought more than twenty appeals before this court, should be

on notice too that any future frivolous, malicious, or abusive filings will put him

at the risk of sanctions, including possible filing restrictions in this court. See

Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting our inherent

authority to impose “comprehensive filing restrictions on litigants who have

repeatedly abused the appellate process”).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 2 -
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Richard P.Crystal, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of New York &Company, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the period presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: December 13, 2005 | /s/ RICHARD  P. CRYSTAL                 |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         | *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and* |
|                         | *President*                             |

 

----
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. I-05-032 June 6, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC TO SEND TEAM TO REVIEW SEABROOK SECURITY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a special inspection team to continue the review

of security at Seabrook Station in Seabrook, N.H. The on-site portion of the inspection began today. 

The plant is operated by FPL Energy. 

Consisting of five inspectors, the NRC team is tasked with following up on NRC-identified

findings from an inspection conducted in May. The multi-disciplinary team will look at the company’s

root cause analysis and evaluate the long-term corrective actions planned by the company. Prior to

leaving the site after the May inspection, NRC inspectors reviewed the company’s short-term

corrective actions that included on-site compensatory measures and found them to be appropriate and

in accordance with the company’s security plan. 

NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said, "Since conducting our inspection last

month, NRC continued to assure that the company was addressing the inspection findings. This special

inspection will provide us with an in-depth look at the company’s efforts to correct any problems and

prevent recurrence."

The NRC inspection team includes specialists from the Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa.,

and the NRC’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. The team is expected to spend about one week on site

before returning to the regional office, where information they gather will be analyzed and evaluated.

The NRC routinely conducts inspections of security at the nation’s nuclear power plants. The

details of those inspections are not publicly available. The NRC has determined that certain security

information should not be publicly available if it could reasonably be useful to an adversary. 

###
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

June 23, 2014 

Mr. John Maloney 

Director of Operations 

Florida West International Airways, Inc. 

P.O. Box 025752 

Miami, FL 33102-5752 

Dear Mr. Maloney: 

This is in response to your March 2, 2011 letter sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2011-0197) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to change the language in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

121.689(a)(6). Specifically, the petition for rulemaking requested the FAA change 

“Minimum fuel supply (in gallons or pounds)” to “Minimum fuel supply.” 

In accordance with 14 CFR 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when making 

a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for 

rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

The FAA has a list for rulemaking projects that address many issues that are crucial to the 

safety of the aviation community and the traveling public. The FAA must prioritize its 

limited rulemaking resources so as to deliver the most value to the aviation system as a 

whole. While the issues raised in your petition may have merit, we have determined that 

the issue you raise is not an immediate safety concern. 
2

For the reasons above, we deny your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR 11.73. Although the FAA has decided to deny the request, your comments and 

reasons for a rule change will be considered if the agency undertakes future rulemaking 

in this area. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Jodi L. Baker 

Deputy Assistant Manager, Air Transportation Division
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 29, 2010



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

R ICHARD A. P OSNER

, Circuit Judge

M ICHAEL S. K ANNE

, Circuit Judge



### No

. 10

- 1347

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

D AVID S. S ZYMUSKIEWICZ

, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin

.

No. 07

- CR

- 171

Lynn Adelman

, Judge

.

Order

The opinion of this court issued o n September 9, 201 0, is amended as follows:

Page 8, delete the entire paragraph beginning on the bottom of this page

starting with, “In saying that . . .”

Page 9, delete the entire paragraph beginning on the bottom of this page

starting with, “The Sto red Communication Act . . .”
### §12407. Recommendations on intrastate communication

The State Justice Institute, after consultation with nationally recognized nonprofit associations with expertise in data sharing among criminal justice agencies and familiarity with the issues raised in stalking and domestic violence cases, shall recommend proposals regarding how State courts may increase intrastate communication between civil and criminal courts.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40608, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1952.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14037 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
# L_2016211EN.01002401.xml

| 4.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/24

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 87/2015

of 30 April 2015

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2016/1270]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/174 of 5 February 2015 amending and correcting Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/174 of 5 February 2015 amending and correcting Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | This Decision concerns legislation regarding foodstuffs. Legislation regarding foodstuffs shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the introduction to Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

This Decision concerns legislation regarding foodstuffs. Legislation regarding foodstuffs shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the introduction to Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein.

| (3) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 55 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32015 R 0174: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/174 of 5 February 2015 (OJ L 30, 6.2.2015, p. 2).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32015 R 0174: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/174 of 5 February 2015 (OJ L 30, 6.2.2015, p. 2).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2015/174 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 May 2015, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 April 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 30, 6.2.2015, p. 2.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

www.nrc.gov

 

No. I-06-035 May 30, 2006

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC PROPOSES $3,250 CIVIL PENALTY FOR ELIZABETH, PA., FIRM

OVER TEMPORARY LOSS OF NUCLEAR GAUGE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is proposing a $3,250 fine for a firm based in

Elizabeth (Allegheny County), Pa., based on a violation of agency requirements stemming from the

temporary loss of a nuclear gauge. The gauge involved contains radioactive material and is used for

such industrial purposes as measuring the density of soil at construction sites.

NRC inspectors identified the violation during an inspection conducted in January and February

2006 at the Elizabeth offices of GeoMechanics, Inc. The inspection was performed in response to an

event in September of last year. On Sept. 18, 2005, a company employee authorized to use nuclear

gauges parked a pickup truck in the lot of a South Charleston, W.Va., motel. The truck contained a

gauge, which holds small amounts of cesium-137 and americium-241 in sealed form. The gauge was

in a locked container in the open bed of the vehicle.

On the following morning, the employee discovered the lock had been cut and the container,

including the gauge, had been removed. Local police and the NRC were immediately notified.

The gauge, still in its container and undamaged, was found abandoned on Sept. 23, 2005, along

a highway in Danville, W.Va.

As a result of the NRC inspection, the violation by GeoMechanics was identified. Specifically,

the NRC, as of July 2005, requires that a minimum of two independent physical controls be used to

secure portable nuclear gauges from being stolen or lost. In this case, a single chain and lock were

used to secure the gauge to the vehicle while it was parked overnight.

“Although you concluded that the source remained in its shielded position during the time the

gauge was in the public domain and, therefore, no member of the public received measurable radiation

exposure, this violation is of concern to the NRC because (1) the failure to control radioactive material

resulted in the gauge being stolen and left on a public highway for approximately five days; and (2)

such sources can result in unintended radiation doses to individuals if the source is removed from the

shielded position,” NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins wrote to the company in a letter

regarding the enforcement action.
GeoMechanics representatives discussed the violation with NRC staff during a predecisional

enforcement conference held in King of Prussia, Pa., on April 26, 2006. During that session, the

company acknowledged the violation occurred and discussed its corrective actions designed to prevent

a recurrence. These corrective actions include retraining all employees authorized to use nuclear

gauges and redesigning the box within which a gauge is secured to a vehicle in order to ensure proper

controls are maintained.

The company is required to provide the NRC with a written reply within 30 days.

 ###