alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2023240EN.01009901.xml

| 28.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/99

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 227/2020

of 11 December 2020

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2023/2029]

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) 2019/2031 of 12 November 2019 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions for the food, drink and milk industries, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2031 of 12 November 2019 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions for the food, drink and milk industries, under Directive 2010/75/EU 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 1ft (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1135) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘1fu. | 32019 D 2031: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2031 of 12 November 2019 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions for the food, drink and milk industries, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 313, 4.12.2019, p. 60).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘1fu.

32019 D 2031: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2031 of 12 November 2019 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions for the food, drink and milk industries, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 313, 4.12.2019, p. 60).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2031 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 12 December 2020, 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, 11 December 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 313, 4.12.2019, p. 60.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### § 945.54 Minimum quantity exemption.

The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish, for any or all portions of the production area, minimum quantities below which shipments will be free from regulations issued or in effect pursuant to §§ 945.40 to 945.65, inclusive, or any combination thereof.
#### In re NORTHERN BANK OF NEW YORK. In re CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

In the matter of the Northern Bank of New York, and in the matter of the City of New York. For former opinion, see 148 N. Y. Supp. 70.

PER CURIAM.

Motion granted. Questions certified. Order filed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD MARSHALL, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:06cv701-ID

v. )

)

CHRIS WEST, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff Richard Marshall’s motion to amend

complaint, filed May 29, 2007 (Doc. No. 13), it is ORDERED that said motion be and

the same is hereby GRANTED.

DONE this 29 day of May, 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 14 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
Board of Directors Compensation Schedule.



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 Domino’s Pizza, Inc. 
 Independent Director Compensation Schedule 
 The following table sets forth the compensation received by independent directors of Domino’s Pizza, Inc., effective July 1, 2006: 
  

				
	 Compensation Type
	  	Amount
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	40,000 per year
	 Board of Directors Meeting Fee
	  	$	2,000 per meeting
	 Committee Meeting Fee
	  	$	1,500 per meeting
	 Audit Chairperson Retainer
	  	$	15,000 per year
	 Compensation Committee Chairperson Retainer
	  	$	10,000 per year
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson Retainer
	  	$	10,000 per year
	 Annual Stock Option Grant
	  	 	7,500 shares per year
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 509 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 509

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 26, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1461) to reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-
sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the bill 
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.24 Updating of application and environmental impact statement. ( a ) The application must be as complete as possible in light of the information that is reasonably available at the time of docketing.
( b ) DOE shall update its application in a timely manner so as to permit the Commission to review, before issuance of a license— ( 1 ) Additional geologic, geophysical, geochemical, hydrologic, meteorologic, materials, design, and other data obtained during construction;
( 2 ) Conformance of construction of structures, systems, and components with the design;
( 3 ) Results of research programs carried out to confirm the adequacy of designs, conceptual models, parameter values, and estimates of performance of the geologic repository.
( 4 ) Other information bearing on the Commission's issuance of a license that was not available at the time a construction authorization was issued.
( c ) DOE shall supplement its environmental impact statement in a timely manner so as to take into account the environmental impacts of any substantial changes in its proposed actions or any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CR-202-WKW

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the government shall file a response to the defendant’s pro se

Motion to Suspend Execution of Forfeiture (Doc. # 124) on or before July 25, 2008.

DONE this 11th day of July, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 125 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10.1


July 17, 2006


William Leonard

3111 West Allegheny Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19132


Re:                  Interim
CEO


Dear Bill:


This letter agreement (“Agreement”)
shall serve to evidence your appointment as interim Chief Executive Officer of
The Pep Boys — Manny, Moe & Jack (the “Company”).


1.             Your appointment shall continue until the earliest of
(i) the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive Officer by the Board of
Directors, (ii) your removal by the Board of Directors or (iii) the tender of
your resignation to the Board of Directors.


2.             In exchange for your services, you shall receive a
salary at a monthly rate of $83,333, payable in accordance with the Company’s
normal payroll practices.  During your
period of employment, you SHALL NOT be entitled to receive any cash
consideration on account of your service on the Board of Directors, but shall
be entitled to receive your customary equity grants.


3.             You specifically acknowledge that you SHALL NOT be
entitled to receive or participate in any of the Company’s welfare, retirement
or other benefits plans or receive any other perquisites.


4.             You
shall hold in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the Company all secret or
confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the Company or any of
its affiliated companies, and their respective businesses, which shall have
been obtained by you during your employment by the Company or any of its
affiliated companies and which shall not be public knowledge (other than by
acts by you or your representatives in violation of this Agreement).  Following the termination of your employment
by the Company, you shall not, without the prior written consent of the Company
or as required by applicable law, communicate or divulge any such information,
knowledge or data to anyone other than the Company and those designated by it.









 



 


5.             This
Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Company and its
successors.   This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania without reference to principles of conflict of laws.  The parties hereto agree that exclusive
jurisdiction of any dispute regarding this Agreement shall be the state or
federal courts located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  EACH PARTY HEREBY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A JURY
TRIAL IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROCEEDING OVER ANY DISPUTE ARISING UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT.  This Agreement constitutes
the entire agreement among the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereto,
and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and
discussions, whether oral or written, of the parties.


 


	
  

  	
  Sincerely yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/THE PEP
  BOYS—MANNY, MOE & JACK

  



 


Acknowledged and agreed
to by:


/s/ William Leonard
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32146]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory 
Committee

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Establishment of a NARA Advisory Committee, Pursuant 
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 and by 
Section 3(d) of Executive Order 13549.

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

SUMMARY: The President of the United States has determined that the 
establishment of the State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy 
Advisory Committee is necessary and is in the public interest in 
connection with the Classified National Security Information Program. 
This committee will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Hadyka, 301-837-1782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Committee shall discuss Classified 
National Security Information Program-related policy issues in dispute 
in order to facilitate their resolution and to otherwise recommend 
changes to policies and procedures that are designed to remove undue 
impediments to the sharing of information under the Program.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-32146 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BYRON ESTRADA

- CHACON,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 70505 Agency No. A091

- 617

- 775

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Byron Estrada

- Chacon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Im migration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum and related relief

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 70505

Holder , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009 ) . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err or violate due process in determining that Estrada

Chacon’s conviction under California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 288(a) in 1988 is an aggravated felony, where the Illegal Imm igration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) includes “sexual abuse of a minor” in the
list of aggravated felonies , and the definition of an aggravated felony under
IIRIRA applies regardless of the date of the commission of the crime. See Becker
v. Gonzales , 473 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) ; Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“ To prevail on a due

- process claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate both a viol ation of rights and prejudice.” )

. Accordingly, the agency properly determined Estrada

- Chacon is ineligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) , (B)(i) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) ( “ sexual abuse of a minor ” is an aggravated felony ); United States v. Medina

- Villa , 567 F.3d 507, 520 (9th Cir. 2009) ( a convicti on under CPC § 288(a) constitutes “sexual abuse of a
minor” ).
Estrada

- C hacon’s contention that CPC § 288(c)(1) is broader than the federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” is unavailing, where he was convicted under CPC § 288(a). We lack jurisdiction to review Estrada

- Chacon’s unexhausted contention3 17

- 70505

that his conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitu de. See Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d 1071 , 1080 (9th Cir. 20 10 ) ( “ We lack jurisdiction to review legal c laims not presented in an alien’ s administrative proceedings before the BIA

. ” ).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32053]



[[Page 80536]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 24, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Vehicle Infrastructure 
Integration Consortium (``VIIC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Nissan North America, Inc., Franklin 
Hills, TN, has succeeded Nissan North America Technical Center, Inc., 
Farmington Hills, MI, as a member, and the name of the member 
previously listed as Mercedes-Benz Research & Technology North America, 
Inc. is corrected to read Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North 
America, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and VIIC intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 1, 2006, VIIC filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 2, 
2006 (71 FR 32128).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 11, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 7, 2008 (71 FR 18811).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-32053 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Bella Zemel, Appellee, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 41,039.

opinion filed June 26, 1940;

rehearing denied July 9, 1940.

Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant; Nathaniel Rubinkam and Albert E. Hallett, Jr., of counsel; Peter Fitzpatrick and *273Novak & Ostrom, for appellee; Peter Fitzpatrick and George A. Askounis, of counsel.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Friend.

“Not to be published in full.”
### Crater Lake: blue through time

By: Gary L. LarsonMark BuktenicaRobert Collier

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs01803

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (239 KB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 29 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1881

PENG LIU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 10, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Gardner, Benjamin Vinocour, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, 

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo 

Nickerson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Peng Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his 

applications for relief from removal. 

Liu first challenges the determination that he failed 

to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a 

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must 

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Liu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. 

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Liu cannot meet 

the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. 

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Next, we uphold the finding below 

that Liu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not 

that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Finally, we have considered Liu’s claim 

that he was denied due process due to problems with translation 

during the hearing and conclude that such claim lacks merit. 

See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). 
3

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 60.6 Exemptions.

The Commission may, upon application by DOE, any interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
#### MORGAN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by John H. Morgan against the City of New York.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.