alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2001.90 Agency annual reporting requirements. ( a ) *Delegations of original classification authority.* Agencies shall report delegations of original classification authority to ISOO annually in accordance with section 1.3(c) of the Order and § 2001.11(c).
( b ) *Statistical reporting.* Each agency that creates or safeguards classified information shall report annually to the Director of ISOO statistics related to its security classification program. The Director will instruct agencies what data elements are required, and how and when they are to be reported.
( c ) *Accounting for costs.* ( 1 ) Information on the costs associated with the implementation of the Order will be collected from the agencies. The agencies will provide data to ISOO on the cost estimates for classification-related activities. ISOO will report these cost estimates annually to the President. The agency senior official should work closely with the agency comptroller to ensure that the best estimates are collected.
( 2 ) The Secretary of Defense, acting as the executive agent for the National Industrial Security Program under E.O.12829, as amended, *National Industrial Security Program,* and consistent with agreements entered into under section 202 of E.O. 12989, as amended, will collect cost estimates for classification-related activities of contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees, and report them to ISOO annually. ISOO will report these cost estimates annually to the President.
( d ) *Self-Inspections.* Agencies shall report annually to the Director of ISOO as required by section 5.4(d)(4) of the Order and outlined in § 2001.60(f).
#### George’s Bake Shop, Inc., Appellant, *v.*State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 37116.)

Third Department,

July 7, 1964.

*424
      *Ira I. Gluckstein*for appellant.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Julius L. Sackman*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Herlihy, J.

This is an appeal by the claimant from an award of the Court of Claims on the ground that the amount was inadequate.

The claimant sought to recover damages for fixtures located in a store on premises appropriated. The only evidence of value, as testified to by claimant’s appraiser, without objection, was in the amount of $15,076 arrived at by taking the reproduction cost new, less depreciation and the resulting sound value.

The State offered no evidence as to damages. During the course of the trial, the court observed: “We will give you money, but we will not give you those amounts. I think the depreciations are not sufficient. I have seen them.” Subsequently the court found the sound value of the various fixtures amounted to $6,194.

The memorandum of the court stated that before deciding the case it awaited the decision of the Court of Appeals in *Marraro*v. *State of New York*(12 N Y 2d 285). The claim there was for fixtures, such as in the present case. In that case the Court of Claims dismissed the claim on the grounds ‘ ‘ There was no evidence respecting the fair market value of what the State took ” (15 Misc 2d 243, 245).

Upon appeal to this court, the judgment was reversed and damages awarded on the basis of the claimant’s proof of *11*sound value ’ ’, arrived at by deducting depreciation from reproduction costs (15 A D 2d 707). Thereafter the Court of Appeals affirmed noting that the “unit rule”—land and the fixtures are to be valued as a unit and not by taking the aggregate value of the land and fixtures as separately evaluated— yields to exceptional circumstances, for instance, where the character of the property is such that market value is not the best test, separate evaluation may be resorted to.

While the measure of damages used by the claimant was proper, the trial court was not bound, as appellant urges, to accept the expert’s opinion evidence, even though it stood uncontradicted; on the other hand the court could not, in reason, adopt a valuation approximately 40% of the only figure proven without some demonstrable and objective basis for its finding. In this case, no such basis appears in the fact that the Trial Judge viewed the very numerous trade fixtures of this bakery business (subsequently finding the “ sound value” of each); *425nor does any such, basis appear elsewhere in the record. Consequently a new trial should be had.

The judgment should be reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted.

Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylob and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
**Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 June 2006 − Commission v Italy**

**(Case C-207/05)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC – Aid incompatible with the common market – Duty to recover – Non-fulfilment

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a decision of the Commission relating to State aid (Arts
88(2), second subpara., EC and 226 EC) (see paras 31, 33, 35)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a decision of the Commission relating to State aid – Grounds
of defence (Arts 88(2), second subpara., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 40-43)*

3.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid (Art. 88(2), first subpara., EC) (see para. 44)*

4.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligation – Failure to comply with a decision of the Commission relating to State aid – Grounds
of defence (Arts 10 EC and 88(2), EC) (see paras 45, 47-48, 50)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding [C-27/99 (ex NN 69/98)] (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21) – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to recover aid declared incompatible with the common market. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to recover from the recipients aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28701]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than January 28, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e3cfcdcdc5ced4d38ec1d0d0ccc9c3c1d4c9cfced3e0d2c9c3c88ec6d2c28ecfd2c7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25664a4848404b51560b445555494c4644514c4a4b5665574c464d0b4357470b4a5742">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Virginia National Bankshares Corporation, Charlottesville, 
Virginia; to acquire Fauquier Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire Fauquier Bank, both of Warrenton, Virginia.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. WNB Holdings, LLC, North Platte, Nebraska; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring voting shares of Western Bancshares, Inc., 
and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Western Nebraska Bank, 
both of Curtis, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 22, 
2020.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-28701 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Assessing Treasury's Process to Sell Warrants Received from TARP Recipients

              																	United States. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 						*Assessing Treasury's Process to Sell Warrants Received from TARP Recipients, SIGTARP-10-006*,												Washington: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										May 10, 2010,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5118,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### §312. Agency evidence-building plan

(a) Requirement.—The head of each agency shall include in the strategic plan required under section 306 a systematic plan for identifying and addressing policy questions relevant to the programs, policies, and regulations of the agency. Such plan shall contain the following:

(1) A list of policy-relevant questions for which the agency intends to develop evidence to support policymaking.

(2) A list of data the agency intends to collect, use, or acquire to facilitate the use of evidence in policymaking.

(3) A list of methods and analytical approaches that may be used to develop evidence to support policymaking.

(4) A list of any challenges to developing evidence to support policymaking, including any statutory or other restrictions to accessing relevant data.

(5) A description of the steps the agency will take to accomplish paragraphs (1) and (2).

(6) Any other information as required by guidance issued by the Director.

(b) Evaluation Plan.—The head of each agency shall issue in conjunction with the performance plan required under section 1115(b) of title 31, an evaluation plan describing activities the agency plans to conduct pursuant to subsection (a) of this section during the fiscal year following the year in which the performance plan is submitted. Such plan shall—

(1) describe key questions for each significant evaluation study that the agency plans to begin in the next fiscal year;

(2) describe key information collections or acquisitions the agency plans to begin in the next fiscal year; and

(3) any 1 other information included in guidance issued by the Director under subsection (a)(6).

(c) Consultation.—In developing the plan required under subsection (a), the head of an agency shall consult with stakeholders, including the public, agencies, State and local governments, and representatives of non-governmental researchers.

(Added Pub. L. 115–435, title I, §101(a)(2), Jan. 14, 2019, 132 Stat. 5530.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Jan. 14, 2019, see section 403 of Pub. L. 115–435, set out as an Effective Date of 2019 Amendment note under section 306 of this title.

1 So in original.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 – Merant v OHIM – Focus Magazin Verlag (FOCUS)**

**(Case T-491/04)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FOCUS – Earlier national figurative mark MICRO FOCUS – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-65)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2) in opposition proceedings between Merant GmbH and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark FOCUS for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 – Application No 53720 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Merant GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | International figurative mark MICRO FOCUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 41 et 42 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition partially upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH upheld; opposition by Merant GmbH dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, Merant GmbH; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the intervener, Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, to bear its own costs. |
Exhibit 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Longs Drug Stores Corporation Registration Statement Nos. 033-54959, 033-60005, 333-88786, 333-98913,
333-98915 and 333-109863 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 26, 2004 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of a new accounting standard in fiscal 2003), appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Longs Drug Stores Corporation for the year ended January 29, 2004.



LOGO

San Francisco, California

April 9, 2004
§ 200.2008 Exchange of witness lists, witness statements, and exhibits. ( a ) At least 15 days before the hearing, the ALJ will order the parties to exchange witness lists, copies of prior written statements of proposed witnesses, and copies of proposed hearing exhibits, including copies of any written statements that the party intends to offer in lieu of live testimony in accordance with § 200.2016.
( b ) ( 1 ) If at any time a party objects to the proposed admission of evidence not exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ will determine whether the failure to comply with paragraph (a) of this section should result in the exclusion of such evidence.
( 2 ) Unless the ALJ finds that extraordinary circumstances justified the failure to timely exchange the information listed under paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ must exclude from the party's case-in-chief: ( i ) The testimony of any witness whose name does not appear on the witness list; and
( ii ) Any exhibit not provided to the opposing party as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 3 ) If the ALJ finds that extraordinary circumstances existed, the ALJ must then determine whether the admission of such evidence would cause substantial prejudice to the objecting party. If the ALJ finds that there is no substantial prejudice, the evidence may be admitted. If the ALJ finds that there is substantial prejudice, the ALJ may exclude the evidence, or at his or her discretion, may postpone the hearing for such time as is necessary for the objecting party to prepare and respond to the evidence.
( c ) Unless another party objects within a reasonable period of time prior to the hearing, documents exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section will be deemed to be authentic for the purpose of admissibility at the hearing.
EXHIBIT
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
  In
connection with the annual report of Energroup Holdings Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Shi Huashan, Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
  (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
and for the periods indicated.
   Date:
      June 16, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Shi HuashanShi
      HuashanChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 84371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28502]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1152 (Second Review)]

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty 
orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts from China would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 
industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on May 1, 2020 (85 FR 
25475) and determined on August 4, 2020 that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (85 FR 74759, November 23, 2020).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on December 18, 2020. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5147 (December 2020), 
entitled Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China: 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1152 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 18, 2020.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-28502 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
Appeal No. 77-36.

#### Eleanor M. Johansen *v.*Harold L. Johansen.

*A. Norman LaSalle,*for plaintiff.

*Harold L. Johansen,*pro se, defendant.

The defendant has moved for an extension of time to file his brief. Because of the difficulty the defendant has had in obtaining an attorney, we are granting him an extension to July 20, 1977 to file his brief. This is positively the last extension which will be granted.
§ 159.4 Policy. ( a ) Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of section 862 of Public Law 110-181, as amended, the selection, training, equipping, and conduct of PSC personnel including the establishment of appropriate processes shall be coordinated between the DoD and the Department of State. Coordination shall encompass the contemplated use of PSC personnel during the planning stages of contingency operations so as to allow guidance to be developed under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and promulgated under § 159.5 in a timely manner that is appropriate for the needs of the contingency operation.
( b ) Combatant Commanders (CCDRs) with geographic Areas of Responsibility (AORs) will provide tailored PSC guidance and procedures for the operational environment in their Area of Responsibility (AOR) in accordance with this part, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)[1] and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).[2]
( c ) In a designated area of combat operations or other significant military operations, the relevant Chief of Mission (COM) will be responsible for developing and issuing implementing instructions for non-DoD PSCs and their personnel consistent with the standards set forth by the CCDR for the applicable geographic AOR in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. The COM has the option to instruct non-DoD PSCs and their personnel to follow the guidance and procedures developed by the CCDR for the applicable geographic AOR and/or a sub unified commander or joint force commander (JFC) where specifically authorized by the Combatant Commander to do so and notice of that authorization is provided to non-DoD agencies.
( d ) The requirements of this part shall not apply to contracts entered into by elements of the intelligence community in support of intelligence activities.
[76 FR 49655, Aug. 11, 2011, as amended at 87 FR 55284, Sept. 9, 2022] Footnotes -
159.4
[1] Published in Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
[2] Published in Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.