alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 109/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.109.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 109 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5213 May 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.109.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 109

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5213 May 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 109/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2009/C 109/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 5 |
| 2009/C 109/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration — (Case COMP/M.5477 — Votorantim/Aracruz) (1) | 6 |
| 2009/C 109/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration — (Case COMP/M.5445 — Mytilineos/Motor Oil/Corinthos Power) (1) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 109/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2009/C 109/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

5

2009/C 109/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration — (Case COMP/M.5477 — Votorantim/Aracruz) (1)

6

2009/C 109/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration — (Case COMP/M.5445 — Mytilineos/Motor Oil/Corinthos Power) (1)

6

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 109/05 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 109/05

Euro exchange rates

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 109/06 | Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/173/09 | 8 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 109/07 | State Aid — Portugal — State aid C 3/09 (ex NN 41 A-B/03) — Aid for the collection, transportation, treatment and destruction of slaughterhouse waste — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty | 9 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2009/C 109/06

Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/173/09

8

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 109/07

State Aid — Portugal — State aid C 3/09 (ex NN 41 A-B/03) — Aid for the collection, transportation, treatment and destruction of slaughterhouse waste — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 1071.306 Recommended decision. The adjudicative officer shall issue a recommended decision on the application within 60 days after the time for filing a reply, or where further proceedings are held, within 60 days after completion of such proceedings. ( a ) For a decision involving a prevailing party: The decision shall include written findings and conclusions on the applicant's eligibility and status as a prevailing party, and an explanation of the reasons for any difference between the amount requested and the amount awarded. The decision shall include, if at issue, findings on whether the agency's position was substantially justified, whether the applicant unduly protracted the proceedings, or whether special circumstances make an award unjust.
( b ) For a decision involving an allegedly excessive Bureau demand: The decision on the application shall include written findings and conclusions on the applicant's eligibility and an explanation of the reasons why the Bureau's demand was or was not determined to be substantially in excess of the underlying decision of the adjudicative officer and was or was not unreasonable when compared with that decision. That determination shall be based upon all the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision on the application shall also include, if at issue, findings on whether the applicant has committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or whether special circumstances make an award unjust.
§ 1071.200 Contents of application. An application for an award of fees and expenses under the Act shall contain the following: ( a ) Identity of the applicant and the proceeding for which the award is sought;
( b ) A showing that the applicant has prevailed; or, if the applicant has not prevailed, a showing that the Bureau's demand was substantially in excess of the decision of the adjudicative officer and was unreasonable when compared with that decision, under the facts and circumstances of that case;
( c ) Identification of the Bureau position(s) in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was (were) not substantially justified; or, identification of the Bureau's demand that is alleged to be excessive and unreasonable and an explanation as to why the demand was excessive and unreasonable;
( d ) A brief description of the type and purpose of the organization or business (unless the applicant is an individual).
( e ) A statement of how the applicant meets the eligibility criteria of § 1071.103;
( f ) The amount of fees and expenses incurred after the initiation of the adversary adjudication, or in the case of a claim for defending against an allegedly excessive demand, the amount of fees and expenses incurred after the initiation of the adjudicative proceeding attributable to the allegedly excessive portion of the demand;
( g ) Any other matter the applicant wishes the Bureau to consider in determining whether and in what amount an award should be made; and
( h ) A written verification under oath or under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and correct, accompanied by the signature of the applicant or an authorized officer or attorney.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of CKX, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert F.X. Sillerman,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 8,2005
|   | By:    | /s/ Robert F.X. Sillerman                         |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Robert F. X. Sillerman                            |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                     |

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSBpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
41783.

#### FANCHER v. THE STATE.

Submitted February 8, 1966

Decided February 24, 1966.

*Johnson & Johnson, Jean E. Johnson, Sr.,*for appellant.

*Luther*Names, *Jr., Solicitor General, Ben F. Smith,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Jones v. Mills,*216 Ga. 616 (118 SE2d 484), the defendant, a justice of the peace, was in the category of *196public officers granted the right to appear before a grand jury before an indictment is returned charging them with malfeasance or misfeasance in office. See also *Code*§§ 89-9907, 89-9908 and *Code Ann.*§ 40-1617. And certainly false swearing in connection with their compensation would fall into such category.

However, in the present case, as in the *Jones*case, supra, the defendant waived the privilege granted him under such provisions of law and could not thereafter raise such question. The indictment was not otherwise defective so as to support the motion to dismiss in the nature of a general demurrer.

There was evidence adduced upon the trial of the case that authorized the verdict of guilty. The indictment charged false swearing in connection with the collection of fees in criminal cases. The solicitor general testified that the defendant brought the document, a list of criminal cases completed during the first three months of 1965 in which the defendant had purportedly issued warrants, that he advised the defendant that such list would have to be sworn to before he could approve it, that Mrs. Frey (employee in the solicitor general’s office) was a notary and could swear him, that he pointed to Mrs. Frey, that the defendant went over to her and signed such document in her presence and then handed it back to him. The document was witnessed by Mrs. Frey as -a notary public. There was also other evidence that the defendant admitted knowing that, when he swore to such “cost-list,” it was untrue. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *McCain v. Bonner,*122 Ga. 842 (51 SE 36), and of this court in *Brooks v. State,*63 Ga. App. 575 (11 SE2d 688), and *Bauknight v. State,*68 Ga. App. 813 (24 SE2d 217), and similar cases the jury was authorized to find that the defendant intended to be sworn and that the notary public intended to' swear him at the time the document was executed.

There was evidence as to the fact that the information contained in the document was false and while a verdict of guilty was not demanded, neither was a verdict of not guilty demanded. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1205

NIKHIL DESAI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; SUPERIOR COURT OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; PAUL E. WEBBER; CURTIS

VON KANN; SCHANTA JONES, United States Deputy

Marshal; TODD DILLARD, United States Marshal

Service,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-97-1686-A)

Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nikhil Desai, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nikhil Desai appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

complaint brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and 42

U.S.C. § 1985 (1994) and denying Desai’s motion to amend the complaint to allow suit against two U.S. Marshals in their individual

capacities. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. The district court properly

found that an amendment to the complaint would be futile because

the statute of limitations, under both Virginia and District of

Columbia law, would bar Desai’s claims against U.S. Marshals Jones

and Dillard. The court also properly found that District of

Columbia Judges Webber and von Kann are absolutely immune from suit

for damages arising out of their judicial actions. To the extent

that Desai seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, the district

court properly dismissed Desai’s claim because lower federal courts

lack jurisdiction to review District of Columbia court proceedings.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (1994); District of Columbia Court of Appeals

v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63

OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, John A. Edwardson, the chief executive officer of CDW Computer Centers,
Inc. (CDW), certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 (the 10-K) of CDW fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CDW.

| |                                                                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ John A. Edwardson

John A. Edwardson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CDW Computer Centers, Inc.
March 28, 2003
#### Alice WILLETT *v.*F. Giles WILLETT

75-269

532 S.W. 2d 756

Opinion delivered February 23, 1976

*Laster & Lane,*for appellant.

*William R. Wilson Jr.,*P.A. for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The only question here is whether a money judgment entered in Illinois is entitled to full faith and credit in Arkansas. We affirm the trial court’s refusal to enforce the Illinois judgment.

In 1961 the appellant obtained a divorce in Illinois, where both parties were living. The decree ordered the appellee to pay child support and certain medical expenses. In 1969, after the appellee had moved to Arkansas, the appellant filed a petition in the Illinois case for judgment against the appellee in the amount of his arrearages. On July 16, 1969, the appellee received by mail, in Arkansas, notice that the appellant’s petition would be heard in Illinois on July 17. Upon the advice of an Arkansas attorney the appellee made no attempt to resist the petition. On July 17 the Illinois court entered judgment against the appellee for $8,760, with interest. In 1972 the appellant brought this action to enforce the Illinois judgment.

The trial court was right in refusing to recognize the judgment. Even though the Illinois court had continuing *322jurisdiction in the case, the appellee was entitled, as a matter of due process, to reasonable notice of the petition for judgment. Leflar, American Conflicts Law, § 28 (rev. ed., 1968). The one day’s notice that was given cannot be said to be reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently the Illinois judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit. *Griffin*v. *Griffin,*327 U.S. 220 (1946).

Affirmed.
§ 1310.1 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued by the Council under sections 111, 112 and 113 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) (12 U.S.C. 5321, 5322, and 5323).
( b ) *Purpose.* The principal purposes of this part are to set forth the standards and procedures governing Council determinations under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5323), including whether material financial distress at a nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company, could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States, and whether a nonbank financial company shall be supervised by the Board of Governors and shall be subject to prudential standards in accordance with title I of the Dodd-Frank Act.
# C_2022233EN.01003501.xml

| 16.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/35

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2022/C 233/11)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/400/22 – Administrators (AD 7) and experts (AD 9) in the fields of defence industry and space

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal of the European Union

  C 233 A of 16 June 2022.

Further information can be found on the EPSO Internet: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.30

                             SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE
                                       OF
                                    GUARANTOR


         THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of December 23, 1999, is delivered
pursuant to Section 10.04 of the Indenture dated as of September 25, 1997 (as
heretofore or hereafter modified and supplemented and in effect from time to
time, the "Indenture") among LAMAR MEDIA CORP., a Delaware corporation, certain
of its subsidiaries ("Guarantors") and STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a
Massachusetts banking corporation, as Trustee ("Trustee") (all terms used herein
without definition having the meanings ascribed to them in the Indenture).

         The undersigned hereby agree that:

         1. The undersigned are Guarantors under the Indenture with all of the
rights and obligations of Guarantors thereunder.

         2. The undersigned hereby grants, ratifies and confirms the guarantee
provided for by Article Ten of the Indenture to guarantee unconditionally,
jointly and severally with the other Guarantors, to each Holder of a Note
authenticated and delivered by the Trustee, and to the Trustee on behalf of such
Holder, the due and punctual payment of the principal of (and premium, if any)
and interest on such Note when and as the same shall become due and payable.

         3. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the
representations and warranties set forth in the Indenture, to the extent
relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on and as of the date
hereof.

         4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the
Indenture should be delivered to the undersigned at the address specified in
Section 12.02 of the Indenture.

         5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any
counterpart of the Indenture.

         6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York.



<PAGE>   2



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Supplemental
Indenture to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                        Guarantor:

                                        Lamar Florida, Inc.
                                        a Florida corporation



December 23, 1999                       By:  /s/ Keith A. Istre
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Keith A. Istre
                                           Vice President - Finance and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

Attest:


By:  /s/ James R. McIlwain
   --------------------------------
   James R. McIlwain, Secretary

Accepted:

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
     COMPANY, as Trustee

By: /s/ ANDREW M. SINASKY
   ------------------------------


Title: Assistant Vice President
      ---------------------------
# C_2021473EN.01002101.xml

| 24.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 473/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 473/21

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2021/C 473/07)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Portugal

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Portugal

Subject of commemoration: Tokyo Olympics

Description of the design: The design depicts the Portuguese Olympic Committee symbols. The design had earned the Council’s approval in 2020 as it was initially intended to be issued in mid-2020. However, Casa da Moeda and the Olympic Committee have agreed to postpone its issuance in accordance to the Games new calendar from July 23 to August 8, 2021, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. For that reason a few design details on the lettering have been updated, specifically the abbreviated two-digit format for the year 2020 (by using an apostrophe: ‘Tóquio’20’) followed by the year of issuance 2021, and finally the author’s name that appears next to the Mintmark.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 510 000

Date of issue: Middle of 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---