alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2019174EN.01003101.xml

| 27.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 174/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 174/31

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 169/2017

of 22 September 2017

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2019/1057]

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 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/698 of 3 February 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/698 of 3 February 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 12nza (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32017 R 0698: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/698 of 3 February 2017 (OJ L 103, 19.4.2017, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32017 R 0698: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/698 of 3 February 2017 (OJ L 103, 19.4.2017, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/698 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 23 September 2017, 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, 22 September 2017.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 103, 19.4.2017, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Editorial Note on Subpart B of Part 591
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart B of part 591 appear at 70 FR 31313, May 31, 2005.

§ 591.224 How does OPM adjust price indexes between surveys? ( a ) OPM adjusts price indexes between the triennial surveys in each COLA area that is not surveyed in that year. To do this, OPM uses the annual or biennial change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the COLA area relative to the annual or biennial change in the CPI for the Washington, DC, area. OPM uses the annual change for those areas surveyed the preceding year. OPM uses the biennial change for those areas surveyed 2 years before.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section applies beginning with the effective date of the results of the 2005 survey conducted in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
( c ) Based on additional housing data that may be collected before the 2005 survey conducted in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, OPM will adjust as warranted the price indexes and COLA rates for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the COLA areas in the State of Alaska. OPM will implement any such adjustments on a one-time basis on the effective date of the results of the 2004 surveys conducted in Hawaii and Guam/CNMI, and subject to § 591.228. OPM will publish such adjustments as provided in § 591.229.
[67 FR 22340, May 3, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 59763, Oct. 6, 2004]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KOFIE AKIEM JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00047-FPS-1; 1:13-

cv-00267-FPS)

Submitted: October 19, 2020 Decided: October 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kofie Akiem Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kofie Akiem Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district 

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Jones’ motion to exceed length 

limitations for the informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion to 

appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 919.915 Agent or representative.

*Agent or representative* means any person who acts on behalf of, or who is authorized to commit, a participant in a covered transaction.
§ 575.512 When may an agency terminate a service agreement? ( a ) An agency may unilaterally terminate a service agreement based solely on the business needs of the agency. For example, an authorized agency official may terminate a service agreement when the employee's position is affected by a reduction in force or when there are insufficient funds to continue the planned incentive payments.
( b ) If an agency terminates a service agreement under paragraph (a) of this section, the employee is entitled to keep all incentive payments received and, if applicable, is entitled to receive any additional amount representing the difference between the amount received and the prorated share of the total incentive attributable to completed service. The employee may receive a portion or all of the incentive payment attributable to uncompleted service only to the extent provided in the service agreement.
Board Coverage Decision

2015-28

No Decision Published

BA # 2796

Issued 12/08/2015

V and S Railway, LLC (Name Change)
§ 230.7 Description of services and list of fees, incorporation by reference. ( a ) The text of NIST Special Publication 260, “Catalog of NIST Standard Reference Materials,” and its supplement are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and 1 CFR Part 51.
( b ) SP 260 describes the SRM's that are available and states the procedure for ordering the materials. SP 260 is available at the following places: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Office of Standard Reference Materials, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.
( c ) Supplements are issued when needed to reflect additions, deletions, and corrections to SP 260, and to list fees charged for the SRM's. Supplements are available from the Office of Standard Reference Materials, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.
[41 FR 8472, Feb. 27, 1976, as amended at 55 FR 38315, Sept. 11, 1990]
### §152708. Duty to maintain tax-exempt status

The corporation shall maintain its status as an organization exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1419.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 152708 | 36:1514 (1st sentence). | Dec. 2, 1980, Pub. L. 96–489, §15 (1st sentence), 94 Stat. 2555. |

Section
### §5725. Contracts for data processing or maintenance

(a) Contract Requirements.—If the Secretary enters into a contract for the performance of any Department function that requires access to sensitive personal information, the Secretary shall require as a condition of the contract that—

(1) the contractor shall not, directly or through an affiliate of the contractor, disclose such information to any other person unless the disclosure is lawful and is expressly permitted under the contract;

(2) the contractor, or any subcontractor for a subcontract of the contract, shall promptly notify the Secretary of any data breach that occurs with respect to such information.

(b) Liquidated Damages.—Each contract subject to the requirements of subsection (a) shall provide for liquidated damages to be paid by the contractor to the Secretary in the event of a data breach with respect to any sensitive personal information processed or maintained by the contractor or any subcontractor under that contract.

(c) Provision of Credit Protection Services.—Any amount collected by the Secretary under subsection (b) shall be deposited in or credited to the Department account from which the contractor was paid and shall remain available for obligation without fiscal year limitation exclusively for the purpose of providing credit protection services pursuant to section 5724(b) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 109–461, title IX, §902(a), Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3456.)
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report of Oregon Pacific Bancorp
("Bancorp") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
K. Grove, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bancorp, certify, pursuant to
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (1) The
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 Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Bancorp.

Date: August 14, 2003

/s/ THOMAS K. GROVE

Thomas K. Grove, President and Chief Executive Officer

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

      ** This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to
the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.


                                       24
WESTERN LAW FIRMS WITH REPRESENTATION IN THE NIS

----

**July 1998**
*BISNIS would appreciate learning of any other U.S. Law firms with representation in the NISor of any corrections which should be made to entries on this list.  Tel: 202-482-4655X29.*
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
MOSCOW
ADAMS & REESE c/o Lex International
B.C.D. 00-39 SEP 1 9 2000

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION 

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Yorkrail, Inc.

York Railway Company

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC

Yorkrail, LLC

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

status of Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Yorkrail, Inc., York

Railway Company, Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC, and

Yorkrail, LLC, as employers under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231

et seg.) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.).

Information regarding these companies was provided by Ann Wileczek, Vice 

President, Human Resources, York Railway Company, and was also obtained

from Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 33815. On December 1,

1999, Yorkrail, Inc., and Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company,

employers under the Acts (BA. Nos. 2351 and 2314, respectively) were merged

into a new company, York Railway Company. That company took over the rail

operations previously performed by Yorkrail, Inc., and Maryland and

Pennsylvania Railroad Company. However, assets of those two companies

were transferred to two new companies, Yorkrail, LLC, and Maryland and

Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC. These two new companies are

subsidiaries of York Railway Company and have no employees and perform no

operations. The Surface Transportation Board stated that they will “assume

common carrier status by virtue of the ownership of the underlying rail assets

that [York Railway Company] will operate.”

The evidence of record establishes that York Railway Company and its two

subsidiaries, Yorkrail, LLC, and Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad

Company, LLC, are carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface

Transportation Board. Accordingly, it is determined that they are employers

within the meaning of section l(aXl)(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45

U.S.C. § 231(aXlXi)) and the corresponding provision of the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act as of December 1, 1999, the date as of which

BA# 2389

.1
-2-

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Yorkrail, Inc.

York Railway Company

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, LLC

Yorkrail, LLC

operations were commenced. The status ofYorkrail, Inc., and Maryland and

Pennsylvania Railroad Company as employers under the Acts is terminated as

of the same date.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT 4F APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

JOEL COLBY STEVENS NO. 2021 CW 1309

VERSUS

HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT

NUMBER 1 OF TANGIPAHOA

PARISH D/ B/ A NORTH OAKS

HEALTH SYSTEM AND NORTH OAKS DECEMBER 30, 2021

OCCUPATIONA HEALTH

In Re: Hospital Service District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish

d b/ a North Oaks Health System and North Oaks

Occupational Health, applying for supervisory writs, 

2 st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, 

No. 2020- 0002314. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., LANIER AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Relator failed to provide a copy of

each pleading on which the judgment was found, including all

attachments to the Exception of Res Judicata, in violation of

Rule 4- 5( C)( 8) of the Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of

Appeal. This court further directs relator to provide a copy of

the transcr pt of the hearing on August 23, 2021 in the event a

new applica ion is filed. 

Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an

application for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules

of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. 

In the event relator seeks to file a new application with

this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation and must

comply with Rule 2- 12. 2 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts

of Appeal. Any new application must be filed on or before

January 31, 2022 and must contain a copy of this ruling. 

VGW

WIL

CHH

COURT

OFF

APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY COURT

FOR

LERK- OF

THE COURT
# L_2023106EN.01007401.xml

| 20.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/74

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 269/2022

of 23 September 2022

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2023/798]

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 Decision (EU) 2021/1967 of 11 November 2021 setting up a mandatory data repository and a mandatory digital information exchange mechanism in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1967 of 11 November 2021 setting up a mandatory data repository and a mandatory digital information exchange mechanism in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 32ga (Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘32gb. | 32021 D 1967: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1967 of 11 November 2021 setting up a mandatory data repository and a mandatory digital information exchange mechanism in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 400, 12.11.2021, p. 160).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘32gb.

32021 D 1967: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1967 of 11 November 2021 setting up a mandatory data repository and a mandatory digital information exchange mechanism in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 400, 12.11.2021, p. 160).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1967 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 24 September 2022, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*).

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, 23 September 2022.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kristján Andri STEFÁNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 400, 12.11.2021, p. 160.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7616

COREY E. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BUTLER LAW FIRM,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00033-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND 

NUCLEAR PLANT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year 

renewal of the operating licenses for the Prairie Island nuclear power plant, Units 1 and 2, is 

available for public review. 

 The Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant has two pressurized water reactors, and is 

located 28 miles southeast of Minneapolis. The current operating licenses expire Aug. 9, 2013, 

for Unit 1 and Oct. 29, 2014, for Unit 2. 

 Prairie Island’s operator, Nuclear Management Co., submitted the application April 15. 

The application is available on the NRC Web site at this address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html. A copy is also 

available at the Red Wing Public Library, 225 East Ave., Red Wing, Minn. 

 The NRC staff is currently conducting its initial reviews of the application to determine 

whether it contains sufficient information required for the safety and environmental reviews. If 

the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally “docket,” or file it and will 

announce an opportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing on the renewal request. 

Additional information about the NRC’s process for reviewing reactor license renewal 

applications is available on the NRC Web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-093 May 13, 2008