alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011294EN.01000701.xml

| 6.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 May 2011

in Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10

Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies — Notion of undertaking — Selectivity — Existing aid and new aid — Distortion of competition and effect on trade — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 294/07

In Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10, Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave judgment on 10 May 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
#### § 214.1 Scope of part.

Pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended (40 Stat. 235, 48 Stat. 181; 12 U.S.C. 358, 348a), and by other provisions of law, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System prescribes the following regulations governing relationships and transactions between Federal Reserve Banks and foreign banks or bankers or groups of foreign banks, or bankers, or a foreign State as defined in section 25(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (55 Stat. 131; 12 U.S.C. 632).
42455.

#### NORBO TRADING CORPORATION v. RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Argued January 3, 1967 —

Decided March 10, 1967

Rehearing denied March 29, 1967

*498
      *John E. Calhoun,*for appellant.

*Joseph B. Bergen, Converse Bright, Edenfield, Heyman & Sizemore, Newell Edenfield, Joseph Lefkofi,*for appellees.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. It seems too plain, without elaborate discussion, that the petition sets forth an action in tort, wherein punitive damages are also sought, based on the acts of the several defendants which are alleged to have been wilfully committed for the purpose of violating the plaintiff’s rights and doing injury to it as alleged. The defendants owed the plaintiff the duty not to injure it in the ways alleged in the petition, with one exception and that is the act of Jerome Wohlmuth, alleged in Paragraph 17 of the petition, in converting $13,000 of plaintiff’s money to his own use. In so doing he could not have been acting for the plaintiff or any of the de*499fendants. The petition does not show on its face that the handling of the fourth ship purchased by plaintiff was included in the power of attorney shown in the petition. Whether or not the defendant insurance company did authorize the issuance of the bonds, the insurance company had no right to commit the unlawful acts alleged in the petition against the plaintiff. As to the dual agency of some of the defendants, the petition does not show on its face that the fact of the dual agencies was not known to and assented to by the principals involved so the allegations must be construed in the light of whether the agents were acting in good faith as to both principals. Under the allegations they were not, but were acting in bad faith insofar as their fidelity to the plaintiff was concerned. As to the consent decree, authorizing the exercise of the power of attorney by Wohlmuth, the plaintiff was bound only by its proper and faithful exercise and not by unauthorized and unlawful exercise as alleged in the petition. We cannot agree with appellees’ interpretation of some parts of the petition which interpretations, in our opinion, are shown to be incorrect by plain and unambiguous allegations of the petition. We think that the allegations of the wrongful and illegal acts of each and all of the defendants are sufficiently alleged to withstand the general demurrer as well as the allegations of conspiracy between the defendants. *Young v. Wilson,*183 Ga. 59 (2g) (187 SE 44); *National Bank of Savannah v. Evans,*149 Ga. 67 (99 SE 123). Cases cited by appellees are distinguishable on their facts. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Hall, J., concurs. E'berhardt, J., concurs in the judgment.*
# C_2022129EN.01001701.xml

| 22.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/17

---

Notification of vacancy notice for Administrative Director (grade AD 14) of Eurojust — The Hague (the Netherlands) — 22/EJ/05

(2022/C 129/08)

Eurojust invites applications for the position of Administrative Director of Eurojust. Eurojust was established in 2002 to enhance the effectiveness of the Member States’ competent authorities to deal with serious cross- border and organised crime. Eurojust is formed by a College of prosecutors and judges who are responsible for its organisation and operation. The Administrative Director is responsible, under the supervision of the President of the College, for the day-to-day administration of Eurojust and for staff management. Please consult our website for the detailed vacancy notice and procedure for application:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

The deadline for submission of applications is 28 April 2022 at midnight CET.

---
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 3.5

                           TEXT OF SPECIAL RESOLUTION

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


                                       -44-
<PAGE>

                                       -45-

CONSOLIDATION OF COMMON SHARES

UPON MOTION duly made, IT IS RESOLVED AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT:

1.       The 20,000,000 Common shares without par value in the capital of the
         Elephant & Castle (the "Company") be consolidated into 10,000,000
         Comm0n shares without par value, every tow Common shares before
         Consolidation being consolidated into one share (the "Consolidation"),
         and the memorandum of the Company be altered accordingly so that it
         shall be in the form set out in Schedule A.

2.       No fractional Common shares of the Corporation be issued in connection
         with the Consolidation, and the number of Common shares to be received
         by each shareholder will be rounded down to the nearest whole number of
         Common shares which that shareholder would otherwise be entitled to
         receive upon such Consolidation.


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


                                   COMPANY ACT

                                   MEMORANDUM

                                       of

                          Elephant & Castle Group Inc.
                                 (the "Company")

                (as altered by special resolution of the Company
                            passed on March 23, 2000)

1.       The name of the Company is Elephant & Castle Group Inc.

2.       The authorized capital of the Company consists of 10,000,000 Common
         shares without par value.


                                       -45-
§ 1408.40 Refunds. ( a ) In instances where the Corporation is the creditor agency, it shall promptly refund any amounts deducted under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5514 when: ( 1 ) The debt is waived or otherwise found not to be owed to the United States (unless expressly prohibited by statute or regulations); or
( 2 ) An administrative or judicial order directs the Corporation to make a refund.
( b ) Unless required or permitted by law or contract, refunds under this section shall not bear interest.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02265

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 02265\02265_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02265\02265_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02265\02265_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02265\02265_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

02265\Certification Statement_02265.pdf Plant certification statement

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
§ 1227.1 Purpose. This part sets forth the procedures FHFA follows under its Suspended Counterparty Program, the purpose of which is to protect the safety and soundness of the regulated entities. The procedures require the regulated entities to submit reports when they become aware that a person with whom they have engaged or are engaging in a covered transaction within the past three (3) years has engaged in covered misconduct. The procedures set forth a process for FHFA to issue suspension orders directing the regulated entities to cease or refrain from engaging in covered transactions with such persons and any affiliates thereof for a specified period of time or permanently. A suspension order is not intended to be, and may not be issued as, a form of punishment for the suspended person. The procedures include options for: ( a ) Appeal of a final suspension order to the Director;
( b ) Request for reconsideration of a final suspension order after twelve (12) months have elapsed; and
( c ) Request for an exception to a final suspension order in effect in order to engage in a particular covered transaction with the suspended person.
#### § 263.60 Scope.

The Uniform Rules set forth in subpart A of this part shall govern the procedures for assessment of civil money penalties, except as otherwise provided in this subpart.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Lou Persico, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DATASCENSION INC.





2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Dated: August 16, 2010/s/ Lou PersicoLou Persico

President and CEO and Principal Executive Officer
#### §§ 303.252-303.259 [Reserved]
§ 269.1 Definition of a labor organization. When used in this part, the term *labor organization* means any lawful organization of any kind, or any employee representation group, which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with any Federal Reserve Bank concerning grievances, personnel policies and practices, or other matters affecting the working conditions of its employees, but the term shall not include any organization: ( a ) Which asserts the right to strike against the government of the United States, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or to assist or participate in any such strike, or which imposes a duty or obligation to conduct, assist or participate in any such strike; or
( b ) Which fails to agree to refrain from seeking or accepting support from any organization which employs coercive tactics affecting any Federal Reserve Bank's operations; or
( c ) Which advocates the overthrow of the constitutional form of the government of the United States; or
( d ) Which discriminates with regard to the terms or conditions of membership because of race, color, sex, creed, age or national origin.
## In **T he**  **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo**  No. 07 - 23 - 00088 - CR LUIS MUNOZ , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 140th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . 2020 - 421042 , Honorable Douglas H. Freitag , Presiding 

### June 27 , 2023 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Luis Munoz , appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery 1 and sentence to ninety - nine years’ confinement. Now pending befor e the Court is the motion of Appellant ’s appointed counsel, Jennifer Ann Zarka, seeking to withdraw and request ing permission to substitute Christopher M. Perri as counsel
. Because t he trial court is responsib le for appointing counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases, as

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.03.2 well as reliev ing or replac ing appointed counsel , w e abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to rule on Appellant’s motion to substitute counsel. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . arts. 1.0 51(d), 26.04(j)(2)
. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine (1) whether Appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal; (2) w hether A ppellant has retained counsel to represent him in this appeal; (3) if so, whether Appellant remains indigent and ent itled to appointed counsel; and (4) whether to dismiss appointed counsel. The trial court may also enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. The trial court’s findings and any orders issued shall be included in a supplemental c lerk’s record to be filed with this Court by July 27 , 2023
. All other appellate deadlines , including Appellant’s pending briefing deadline, are suspended until further order of this Court. It is so ordered. Per Curiam
# C_2010314EN.01000401.xml

| 18.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

2010/C 314/04

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 16 June 2010 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 66330 |
| Decision No | : | 236/10/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | The transfer of property from Narvik municipality to LKAB in 2004, the sale of excavated stone material and the transfers of land in the development agreement of 26 February 2009 — Luossavaara Kiiruunvaara Norge AS |
| Type of measure | : | n.a. |
| Economic sector | : | Sale of property |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Narvik municipality |
| Ordføreren i Narvik, postmottak |
| 8512 Narvik |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

16 June 2010

Case number

:

66330

Decision No

:

236/10/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

The transfer of property from Narvik municipality to LKAB in 2004, the sale of excavated stone material and the transfers of land in the development agreement of 26 February 2009 — Luossavaara Kiiruunvaara Norge AS

Type of measure

:

n.a.

Economic sector

:

Sale of property

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Narvik municipality

Ordføreren i Narvik, postmottak

8512 Narvik

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
§ 19.2 Rules of construction. For purposes of this part: ( a ) Any term in the singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular, if such use would be appropriate;
( b ) The term *counsel* includes a non-attorney representative; and
( c ) Unless the context requires otherwise, a party's counsel of record, if any, may, on behalf of that party, take any action required to be taken by the party.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         267,547
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,355,192
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,622,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          297,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,729,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,622,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (5,014,695)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               743,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,758,268)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,758,268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Anthony v. Central-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia

*720
      *Alex Schamban,*for plaintiff.

*H. M. Ra/ppeport,*for defendant.

December 4, 1956.

Kun, P. J.,

This matter is before the court on defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint in equity.

The complaint avers substantially as follows: Defendant extended to plaintiff a loan of approximately $2,000, and as collateral security therefor entered into an installment sales contract for a certain automobile, which had been purchased by plaintiff. Subsequently, plaintiff borrowed an additional $800 from defendant. Plaintiff fell in arrears in the payments on the installment sales contract, and defendant repossessed the automobile. Plaintiff then offered to redeem, but defendant refused to permit plaintiff to do so. Defendant then sold the automobile, but refuses to tell plaintiff to whom or for how much. Defendant also caused judgment to be entered in Delaware County on the $800 loan, and execution has issued thereon. Plaintiff avers that the reasonable market value of the car, which defendant repossessed and sold, was sufficient to repay the balance of the loan on the car plus the balance on the $800 loan.

The prayer of the complaint is to enjoin defendant from proceeding on the judgment in Delaware County and to order defendant to disclose to plaintiff the details with respect to the sale of the car. Defendant filed preliminary objections to this complaint, alleging that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

*721An examination of the complaint, and particularly the prayer for relief, reveals that plaintiff does have an adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff should have filed a petition to open the judgment secured by defendant on the $800 loan, his defense being payment. If the value of the car which defendant repossessed and sold is sufficient to cover the balance on the original loan plus the $800 loan on which the judgment was entered, then defendant has been repaid on the loan upon which judgment was entered. On the petition to open and the answer thereto, plaintiff can take depositions to establish the details surrounding the sale of the car. Thus plaintiff has a remedy at law, of an equitable nature, to open the judgment, in which procedure he can secure all the relief requested in his complaint in equity.

For the foregoing reason defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint in equity are sustained, and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
# C_2006286EN.01001001.xml

| 23.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/10

---

56th amendment of the State aid Guidelines

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision to propose appropriate measures

(2006/C 286/08)

Date of adoption:

EFTA State: Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein

Case No: 55834

Title: EFTA Surveillance Authority decision amending for the fifty-sixth time the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid — New Chapter 25.B National Regional aid — 2007-2013. Proposal for appropriate measures.

Legal basis: College Decision No. 85/06/COL

Decision: The appropriate measures, proposed by the Authority and accepted by the EFTA States are as follows:

---