alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023145EN.01001901.xml

| 27.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/19

---

Notice from the Government of Malta concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2023/C 145/10)

The Ministry for Finance and Employment hereby notifies that pursuant to the Notice from the Government of Malta concerning the above-mentioned Directive published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 10 November 2022 (2022/C 428/04), Area 2 and Area 7 are now under an authorisation and are not available for licensing until further notice.

Information regarding this notice may be obtained by contacting the Director General of the Continental Shelf Department at the Ministry for Finance and Employment, Block E, Antonio Maurizio Valperga Street, Floriana, FRN 1700, Malta on dgcs.csmalta@gov.mt and on continentalshelf.gov.mt.

---
#### In the Matter of Eleanore Lehman, Respondent, v. Leo Berkman, Appellant.

In a proceeding under article 4 (§ 411 *et seq.)*of the Family Court Act, instituted by a former wife against her former husband, the latter appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County, entered March 21, 1963 after trial, as modified a prior order of support for the infant daughter of the .parties, so as to require the appellant father to pay: (a) the sum of $33 biweekly, commencing March 22, 1963, for such support; and (b) the sum of $400 for orthodontia needs of the child, payable $100 on or before April 18, 1963, and $10 biweekly to *commence*May 3, 1963. Order modified on the facts by striking therefrom the various provisions requiring appellant to pay for orthodontic work for the infant daughter of the parties; and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for the purpose of appointing a disinterested orthodontist to examine the child and to make a full report to the court as to the necessity for and nature of the work required, and the estimated cost thereof, upon tb.e bams of which report the court may take such further action as may be necessary for the child’s welfare. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, *837without costs. In our opinion, the facts appearing in this record do not warrant the direction to pay for orthodontic work, the necessity for and the nature and extent of which are not disclosed. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Amendment to Performance Award Plan



  
 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 KORN/FERRY INTERNATIONAL 
  
 AMENDMENT TO

  
 PERFORMANCE AWARD PLAN 
  
 The following sets forth the amendments and modifications to the Korn/Ferry International Performance Award Plan (the “Plan”) as of December 5, 2002. Terms used herein and not otherwise
defined have the meaning set forth in the Plan. These amendments and modifications have been adopted by the Board and, as applicable, the stockholders of the Company. 
  
 Section 8.5 of the Plan was amended to read as follows: 
  
 “TERMINATION OF DIRECTORSHIP.    If a Non-Employee Director’s services as a member of the Board terminate for any reason, an Option granted pursuant to this Section 8 on or after November
5, 2002 and then held by the director, to the extent the Option is then exercisable, will remain exercisable for 60 months after the date of termination or until the expiration of the stated term of the Option, whichever first occurs. Any portion of
an Option granted pursuant to this Section 8 that is not exercisable at the time of the termination of service will terminate upon the termination of service.”
#### In the Matter of Anthony Ruocco, Appellant, v Donald A. Doyle et al., Respondents. Anthony Ruocco, Appellant, v Donald A. Doyle et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner to his former position as an elementary school principal, which proceeding was consolidated with an action, *inter alia,*to declare petitioner’s purported resignation to be null and void, the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 3, 1978, which dismissed the petition and the complaint, and (2) a further judgment of the same court, entered March 2, 1978, which awarded costs to respondents. Judgment entered February 3, 1978 modified, on the law, by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof, which dismissed the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision declaring that petitioner’s resignation from his position as an elementary school principal was voluntary and not a result of fraud, duress or collusion, and was therefore not against the public policy of this State (see *Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334). As so modified, judgment entered February 3, 1978 affirmed and judgment entered March 2, 1978, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Geiler at Special Term. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

d0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

140791(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140791 COA: 295257 Oakland CC: 2009-225678-FH DANIEL SOUSA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 2, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
### §101531. Fee for use of transportation services

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, where the Service or an entity under a service contract, cooperative agreement, or other contractual agreement with the Service provides transportation to all or a portion of any System unit, the Secretary may impose a reasonable and appropriate charge to the public for the use of the transportation services in addition to any admission fee required to be paid. Collection of the transportation and admission fees may occur at the transportation staging area or any other reasonably convenient location determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may enter into agreements, with public or private entities that qualify to the Secretary's satisfaction, to collect the transportation and admission fee. Transportation fees collected pursuant to this section shall be retained by the System unit at which the transportation fee was collected, and the amount retained shall be expended only for costs associated with the transportation systems at the System unit where the charge was imposed.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3134.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101531 | 16 U.S.C. 5981. | Pub. L. 105–391, title IV, §501, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3518; Pub. L. 109–131, title I, §102(b), Dec. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 2568. |

Section
EXHIBIT 15.1

         The Board of Directors
         Eckerd Corporation and Subsidiaries:



         RE:        Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-50223)

         With  respect  to  the  above  referenced  registration  statement,  we
         acknowledge our awareness of the  incorporation by reference therein of
         our  report  dated  June 6,  1997  related  to our  review  of  interim
         financial  information,  which  report was included in the Form 10-Q of
         Eckerd  Corporation and  Subsidiaries  for the twelve weeks ended April
         26, 1997.

         Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities  Act of 1933,  such report
         is not  considered  a part  of a  registration  statement  prepared  or
         certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared or  certified by an
         accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                                     /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


         Tampa, Florida
         June 6, 1997
#### In the Matter of Jack H. Ross et al., Respondents, v. Abraham D. Beame, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and A. Joseph Leibowitz et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

Order, entered on January 30, 1963, in an article 78 proceeding granting relief to the extent of setting the issues down for trial unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to an application by petitioners for leave to discontinue the proceeding1. Concur — Breitel, J, P.; Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
# FORM 6-K

SECURITIES
  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,
  D.C. 20549

# Report of
  Foreign Issuer

# Pursuant
  to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

# Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934

For the month
  of August 2004

ABBEY NATIONAL
  PLC 
  (Translation of registrants name into English)

Abbey National
  House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place
London NW1 3AN, England   
   (Address of principal executive offices)

|Indicate
      by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
      cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form 20-F . . . .X. . . . Form 40-F . . . . . . . . Indicate
        by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained
        in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission
        pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


Yes
  . . . . . . . No . . .X. . . .

---



**Abbey National plc****18 August 2004**

Issued: 18 August 2004

**Rule 2.10 Announcement  - Relevant Securities in Issue**

In accordance with Rule 2.10 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, Abbey National plc ("Abbey") confirms that, as at close of business on 18 August 2004, it had in issue 1,476,867,935 *(including those represented by ADSs)* ordinary shares of 10 pence each ("Abbey Shares").

The International Securities Identification Number for the Abbey Shares is GB0000044551 and for the American Depositary Shares of Abbey is US0029201060.

Each American Depositary Share of Abbey represents two Abbey Shares.

Karen Carson 
Secretariat Assistant 
Tel: 0207 756 4358

The directors of Abbey National plc accept responsibility for the information contained in this announcement and confirm that, to the best of their knowledge and belief (having taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this announcement is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.



---

# SIGNATURES

Pursuant
  to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
  duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
  duly authorized.

|                     |  | ABBEY NATIONAL PLC               
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: 18 August 2004 |  | By: /s/Karen Carson              
|                     |  | Karen Carson**Abbey Secretariat**
#### Virginia Broniszewski et al., Respondents, v. Harold Newman, Appellant.

Motion to amend notice of appeal granted. Memorandum: The signing of the notice of appeal by the counsel for the attorney of record instead of by the attorney of record himself was an inadvertence which may be corrected under sections 105 and 107 of the Civil Practice Act. *(Rothenberg*v. *Metzger,*227 App. Div. 444.)
#### SCALES et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 11944.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1954.

Cecil Sims, Nashville, Tenn., Cecil Sims, W. W. Berry, James W. Allen, Nashville, Tenn., Bass, Berry & Sims, Nashville, Tenn., of counsel, on the brief, for petitioner Scales et al.

Carolyn R. Just, Washington, D. C., H. Brian Holland, Ellis N. Slack, Roberi *134N. Anderson, Carolyn R. Just, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for respondent.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MC-ALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case has been heard and considered on the record and on the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for the contending parties.

, It appears that the Tax Court of the United States held that the petitioning taxpayers, husband and wife, could not claim the right to report capital gain from the sale of a dairy farm and cattle on the installment basis in accordance with section 44(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 44(b), for the reason that the taxpayers reported payments received on a lease-sale contract [held to be a sale] of a farm and dairy herd in 1943 as rent and not as payments from a sale, even though they reported the same amount as would have been reported as payments from an installment sale. The Tax Court held that the petitioners had not made an election in a timely filed income tax return to report the capital gain on the installment method under section 44(b), wherefore the entire capital gain was said to be taxable in 1943.

We think that, upon the authority of our decision in United States v. Evers-man, 6 Cir., 133 F.2d 261, the court erred. In that case, we held that the taxpayer was entitled to the benefit of section 44(b) of the Internal Revenue Code upon facts which, in principle, are not to be distinguished from those of the instant case. In the Eversman case, we said, 133 F.2d 266, that the failure of the taxpayer “to adopt fruitless ritualistic measures” should not foreclose the allowance to her of all lawful benefits to which she was entitled under the statute. We stated that we found no force in the argument that Mrs. Eversman was required to make an express election in her income tax return in order to receive the benefits available to her under sections 44(b) and 44(d) of the statute.

We cited as directly in point in the Eversman case, and we think also in point here, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Boca Ratone Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.2d 9.

Wherefore, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed; and the cause is remanded for further procedure in conformity with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         44,554,846
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    24,347,332
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         3,320,677
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           3,326,253
<LOANS>                                        546,897,216
<ALLOWANCE>                                    10,331,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 656,012,325
<DEPOSITS>                                     522,382,388
<SHORT-TERM>                                   14,581,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            11,967,088
<LONG-TERM>                                    46,309,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,596,470
<OTHER-SE>                                     47,175,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 656,012,325
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                52,787,491
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,599,768
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               842,519
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               55,229,778
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             18,299,441
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             19,741,967
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          35,487,811
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  3,133,379
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                24,610,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                14,075,102
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     14,075,102
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,825,258
<EPS-BASIC>                                  6.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  6.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 6.18
<LOANS-NON>                                    2,952,188
<LOANS-PAST>                                   995,752
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                5,857,248
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               10,252,508
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  4,016,653
<RECOVERIES>                                   962,659
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              10,331,893
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           10,331,893
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>
### **CHAPTER 3025—CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS**

Sec.
302501.
Definitions.
302502.
Certification as part of State program.
302503.
Requirements for certification.
302504.
Participation of certified local governments in National Register nominations.
302505.
Eligibility and responsibility of certified local government.
#### § 1702.4 Notification to Office of General Counsel.

An ODNI employee who receives or has reason to expect to receive, service of process in an official, individual or combined individual and official capacity in a matter that may involve testimony or the furnishing of documents that could reasonably be expected to involve ODNI interests, shall promptly notify the OGC ((703) 275-2527) prior to responding to the service in any manner, and if possible, before accepting service.
Editorial Note on Part 780
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54949, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 780 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 780.33 Relocation or use of public roads. Each application shall describe, with appropriate maps and cross-sections, the measures to be used to ensure that the interests of the public and landowners affected are protected if, under § 761.14 of this chapter, the applicant seeks to have the regulatory authority approve— ( a ) Conducting the proposed surface mining activities within 100 feet of the right-of-way line of any public road, except where mine access or haul roads join that right-of-way; or
( b ) Relocating a public road.
[44 FR 15357, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 64 FR 70838, Dec. 17, 1999; 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54949, Nov. 17, 2017]
#### § 77.201-1 Tests for methane; qualified person; use of approved device.

Tests for methane in structures, enclosures, or other facilities, in which coal is handled or stored shall be conducted by a qualified person with a device approved by the Secretary at least once during each operating shift, and immediately prior to any repair work in which welding or an open flame is used, or a spark may be produced.
#### § 918.15 Approval of Louisiana regulatory program amendments.

The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| January 19, 1990 | May 8, 1991 | Chapters 1, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53, 55, 59, 63, 65, 69. |
| August 14, 1990 | May 21, 1991 | Policy statements—PS-1, PS-2, PS-3 regarding requirements at LSMR 5353.C, 3127, 5321; 107.C, Chapter 4. |
| November 12, 1991 | October 28, 1992 | LSMR 107.G.1, 2; 53123.A, .1, .2, .3, .4, .B.1.b, .d, .2.a, .b, .3.b, .B.2.a, .4, .7, .9; Policy Statement PS-4 interpreting LSMR 2523; LSMR 53125. |
| May 3, 1994 | September 20, 1994 | LSMR 53123.B.4.a. |
| November 2, 1994 | January 24, 1995 | LSMR 5423.B.4.a; Policy Statement PS-5. |
| December 4, 1997 | March 11, 1998 | LSMR section 105. |
| October 24, 1997 | May 8, 1998 | Sections 105.; 2537.A.11.; 2725.A., A.2., A.3., A.3.a., C.1., F; 2907.C.5.; 3705.A.2., A.2.a., A.2.b.; 3711.A., B.1. through B.6.; 3717.A., A.2., A.3.; 4501.A.3., A.4.; 5333.A.1. through A.13.; 5411.A.; 5413.A.; 5503.A.2.; 5507.A.4.; 6507.A.2.; 6913 .B.; 6915.B.1.; 6917.A.; 7105.C. |
| August 23, 1999 | December 7, 1999 | R.S. 30:907(B)(16) through (20); (C); and 927(2). |
| June 1, 2001 | December 14, 2001 | Revegetation Success Standards for Pastureland. |
| August 3, 2001 | February 26, 2002. | LSMR Sections 105, 1105, 1107.B through F, 1109, 2111.A.8, 2113.B.4, and 2323. |
| October 2, 2001 | November 15, 2002 | LAC Sections 5423.B.1.e. and 8.a.; 5424; 5425; and policy document titled, “Reclamation Phase III Revegetation Success Standards for Post-Mining Land Use of Wildlife Habitat. |
| March 4, 2010 | March 9, 2011 | Sections 105; 2913; 3113 C., D., E., F., G., H.; 3114; 3115 A. 17, 18, 19; 3127; 3129; 3131; 3133; 3135; 3137; Chapter 35 title; 3521; 3523; 3517 C.1.; 2304; 2305 A.1., A.2.c., d., e., A.3., A.4.; 2307 A.1., A.3.; 5414; 6501 G. |

[62 FR 9943, Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 11830, Mar. 11, 1998; 63 FR 25394, May 8, 1998; 63 FR 38881, July 20, 1998; 64 FR 68291, Dec. 7, 1999; 66 FR 64749, Dec. 14, 2001; 67 FR 8719, Feb. 26, 2002; 67 FR 69129, Nov. 15, 2002; 76 FR 12856, Mar. 9, 2011]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antwon Dennis, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 821]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 31, 1994 *(People v Dennis,*208 AD2d 945 [1994]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 18, 1992.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Schmidt and Florio, JJ., concur.