alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019072EN.01001301.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2018 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-664/14) (1)

((State Aid - Aid implemented by Belgium for the benefit of financial cooperatives in the ARCO Group - Guarantee scheme protecting the shares held by individual members of those cooperatives - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and prohibiting the payment of guaranteed amounts to individual members - Subject matter of the dispute - Recovery - Proportionality))

(2019/C 72/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and J. Meyers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (OJ 2014 L 284, p. 53).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

---
Office for Domestic Preparedness 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20531

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 187, August 18, 2005 

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

 All State Homeland Security Directors 

 All Urban Area Core City/Core County Points of Contact 

FROM: Matt A. Mayer 

 Acting Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Cancellation of the FY 2005 Homeland Security Grant Guidance Requirement: 

 Multi-Jurisdictional Prevention and Response Plan Development for an IED Event 

The FY 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) guidance included a requirement that 

all urban areas and designated metropolitan areas develop multi-jurisdictional prevention and 

response plan(s) based on the Homeland Security Council National Planning Scenario for 

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) (FY2005 HSGP Guidance, pp. 50-51). 

In order to allow grantees to focus on HSPD-8 implementation, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) has cancelled the multi-jurisdictional prevention and response planning 

requirement. Urban and designated metropolitan areas do not have to develop prevention and 

response plans for the IED scenario, nor must they validate those prevention and response plans 

through an operations-based exercise. 

Urban and designated metropolitan areas are still required to complete a Tactical Interoperable 

Communications Plan by May 1, 2006 and subsequently validate the plan through the conduct of 

a multi-jurisdictional exercise (Information Bulletin #158 – April 1, 2005). The exercise must be 

conducted within one year of the completion of the Plan, by May 1, 2007. Additional information 

on the exercise will be provided under separate cover.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-3378EM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United Sta tes * District Court for the Easter n v. * District of Missouri. * Ira Anthony Johnson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: April 3, 1997 Filed: April 9, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.

Ira Anthony Johnson appeals his weapons-related conviction s and g uidelines sentence. Johnson’s challenge to th e co nstitutionalityof the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) weapons charge s base don Lopez v. United States , 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), i s foreclosed by our recent decisions. See United States v. Ba tes , 77 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 215 (1996); Unite dStates v. Shelton , 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995) (pe r curiam), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1364 (1996). Also, the district court co rrectly concluded that in the absence of a motion by th e Government for a downward departure it could not sentence Johnson to less than the minimum fifte en-year term mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). See United States v. Rudolph , 970 F.2d 467, 470 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 1069 (1993). We thus affir m Johnson’s convictions and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Robert J. Kline *v.*New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al.

*John F. Scully,*for the appellees (defendants).

*Roger J. Frechette,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued October 7

decided October 7, 1969

The motion by the defendants to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
Office of the Secretary

Office of State and Local 

Government Coordination & 

Preparedness 

Washington, DC 20531 

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 179 June 30, 2005 

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

 

FROM: Matt A. Mayer 

 Acting Executive Director 

SUBJECT: FY 2005 Transit Security Grant Program Requirements 

The Fiscal Year 2005 Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) and application kit was released 

on April 5, 2005. This information bulletin provides several important reminders about the 

guidance. 

Regional Transit Security Strategy

A Regional Transit Security Strategy (RTSS) must be developed by each Regional Transit 

Security Working Group (RTSWG) and should establish an overall vision of regional transit 

preparedness. The RTSS will serve as the strategy for the region with specific goals and 

objectives as they relate to prevention, detection, response, and recovery. 

Per the FY 05 TSGP Program Guidance, the RTSWG should leverage existing strategy 

documents including the Transit System Risk Assessment and Security and Emergency 

Preparedness Plans for participating transit agencies. The RTSS must specifically address 

improvised explosive devices (IED), as well as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

prevention, detection and response capabilities, and the actions necessary to address any gaps. A 

template for the RTSS is available electronically on the ODP Secure Portal at 

https://odp.esportals.com. 

Consensus of Funding Allocation 

Per the FY 05 TSGP Program Guidance, the certification regarding Regional Consensus on 

Funding Allocation form must be submitted by the State Administrative Agency (SAA). This 

form requires only the signatures of the eligible transit agencies and the SAA representative from 

the State or States involved in the RTSWG. It is the responsibility of the SAA to obtain the 

required signatures and submit the form via fax to the Office of State and Local Government 

Coordination & Preparedness (SLGCP) at (202) 786-9930. 
Additional Information 

For your convenience, a Fact Sheet containing additional information about the TSGP has been 

attached. For specific information concerning eligibility and grant guidelines, please refer to the 

TSGP application kit at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2005tsgp.pdf. Questions related to 

this grant program may be directed to tsgp@dhs.gov or to the SLGCP Centralized Scheduling 

and Information Desk 1-800-368-6498. Frequently asked questions regarding the TSGP will be 

addressed in bi-weekly conference calls every other Wednesday from 1:30-2:30 p.m. EST, 

beginning April 20th. 

Call Number 1-800-860-2442 

Participant Code – 4713
38750.

#### COLEMAN *et al.*v. ARONSON *et al.*

Carlisle, Judge.

The plaintiffs alleged that they owned a tract of land adjoining land owned by the defendants; that they entered into an agreement with the defendants to allow the defendants to construct a street along the dividing fine between their lands, one-half on the land of each, and to lay therein water mains, in return for which the plaintiffs were to be allowed to “tap on” to said water main; that after the street was graded and paved and the water main laid in the street along the plaintiff’s land, the plaintiffs made application to the City of Atlanta water department for tapping, which was at first granted and later denied on the ground that defendants had not notified the water department to allow such tappings and that the defendants required the payment of $1.84 per foot in order to permit such tappings; that “defendants waited until there was an immediate need for water tappings to demand payments from plaintiffs, and faced with the danger of more damage if water tappings [were] not had immediately, plaintiff[s] [paid] the sum of $994.32 to defendants” in order to secure said tappings; that such payments were made and receipts taken from the defendants containing the proviso that the defendants would return such payments if the plaintiffs prevailed in a suit against the defendants to recover such payments. The defendants filed a general demurrer which was overruled, and the exception here is to that judgment. *Held:*

The petition stated a cause of action, whether construed as a suit for breach of contract or to recover money had and received. As applicable to the latter theory of the case, *Code*
      *470§ 20-1007 provides that voluntary payments cannot be recovered back “unless made under an urgent and immediate necessity therefor or to release person or property from detention or to prevent an immediate seizure of person or property.” No special demurrer was filed, and the allegation in the petition that the payments were made to the defendants under an immediate need for water tappings to prevent more damage, if water tappings were not had, brought the case within one of the exceptions stated in this Code section quoted above, and the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Decided April 5, 1961.

*James M. Roberts,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Charles E. Markeles, Harry O. Markeles,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P.J.; Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       265,181,218
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  20,436,337
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             285,700,611
<CASH>                                      13,431,655
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          10,592,802
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                     107,137,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             449,112,643
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            143,202,884
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            613,404
<POLICY-OTHER>                              63,728,975
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                             76,860,589
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       815,858
<OTHER-SE>                                 133,381,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               449,112,643
<PREMIUMS>                                 123,212,211
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         12,581,291
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             935,125
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 305,105
<BENEFITS>                                  86,369,820
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>               (24,961,392)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        59,573,964
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             16,051,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,703,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,347,960
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,347,960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, 


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Penn Treaty
American Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, William W. Hunt, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of my
knowledge:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004
          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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
          period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          Companys financial condition and results of operations.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |                                                      
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date:  November 12, 2004 | /s/ William W. Hunt                                  
|                         | William W. Hunt
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



I, James R. Tennant, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Home Products International, Inc., certify that:



|(1) | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 27, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Ace of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the foregoing report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Home Products International, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JAMES R. TENNANT                             
|James R. Tennant                                 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

Dated: May 5, 2004



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Home Products International, Inc. and will be retained by Home Products
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 516.149 Denying a request for addition to the index. ( a ) FDA will deny a request for addition to the index if it finds the following: ( 1 ) The same drug in the same dosage form for the same intended use is already approved or conditionally approved;
( 2 ) On the basis of new information, the new animal drug no longer meets the conditions for eligibility for indexing;
( 3 ) The request for indexing fails to contain information required under the provisions of § 516.145;
( 4 ) The qualified expert panel fails to meet any of the selection criteria listed in § 516.141(b);
( 5 ) The written report of the qualified expert panel and other information available to FDA is insufficient to permit FDA to determine that the benefits of using the new animal drug for the proposed use in a minor species outweigh its risks to the target animal, taking into account the harm caused by the absence of an approved or conditionally-approved new animal drug for the minor species in question;
( 6 ) On the basis of the report of the qualified expert panel and other information available to FDA, the benefits of using the new animal drug for the proposed use in a minor species do not outweigh its risks to the target animal, taking into account the harm caused by the absence of an approved or conditionally-approved new animal drug for the minor species in question; or
( 7 ) The request contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits material information.
( b ) When a request for addition to the index is denied, FDA will notify the requestor in accordance with § 516.153.
[Cite as State v. Feathers , 2021-Ohio-171.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2020-P-0095 - vs - : DAVID E. FEATHERS, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CR 00695.

Jud g ment: Appeal dismissed.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee )

. David E. Feathers, PID# A763-828, Marion Correctional Institution, 940 MarionWilliamsport Road, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43302 ( Defendant-Appellant )

.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. {¶1} Appellant, David E. Feathers, moves to file a delayed appeal, p ursuant to App.R. 5(A). {¶2} Appellant moves to appeal the trial court’s May 17, 2017 entry sentencing him to 180 days in jail; probation; and a 20-year driver’s lice nse suspension, after entering a guilty plea to failure to comply. {¶3} A timely notice of appeal was due no later than June 16, 2017. Appellant’s appeal is untimely by over three and one-half years

.2 {¶4} No brief or memorandum in opposition to appellant’s motion has been

filed. {¶5} App.R. 4(A)(1) states, in part: {¶6} “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is fin al upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 with in thirty days of that entry.” {¶7} App.R. 5(A) provides: {¶8} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the followin g classes of cases: {¶9} “(a) Criminal proceedings; {¶10} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and {¶11} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. {¶12} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellan t to perfect an appeal as of right. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals.” {¶13} In his motion, appellant asserts that the underlying case was “ packaged with two cases, and cases numbers, presently pending before thi s court for review and

consideration.” He contends t hat the May 17, 2017 entry “is th e foundational heart of all aforementioned consolidated companion cases.” That appellant h as other appeals pending with this court that he considers relevant to this case , however, is not a justifiable reason for appealing over three and one-half years late.3 {¶14} Appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is overruled. {¶15} Appeal dismissed.

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,

concur.
#### Carl Gerr *v.*Yale University

*Mitchel W. Garber,*in support of the motion.

Submitted October 11

decided October 23, 1968

The motion by the plaintiff for permission to file an appendix to his brief in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.2991 Zinc oxide. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive zinc oxide shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.1991 (a)(1) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* Zinc oxide may be safely used in cosmetics, including cosmetics intended for use in the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling.* The color additive and any mixture prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall bear, in addition to any information required by law, labeling in accordance with § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification pursuant to section 721(c) of the act.
[42 FR 37538, July 22, 1977]