alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 263.95 Initiation of disciplinary proceeding. ( a ) *Receipt of information.* An individual, including any employee of the Board, who has reason to believe that an individual practicing before the Board in a representative capacity has engaged in any conduct that would serve as a basis for censure, suspension or debarment under § 263.94, may make a report thereof and forward it to the Board.
( b ) *Censure without formal proceeding.* Upon receipt of information regarding an individual's qualification to practice before the Board, the Board may, after giving the individual notice and opportunity to respond, censure such individual.
( c ) *Institution of formal disciplinary proceeding.* When the Board has reason to believe that any individual who practices before the Board in a representative capacity has engaged in conduct that would serve as a basis for censure, suspension or debarment under § 263.94 the Board may, after giving the individual notice and opportunity to respond, institute a formal disciplinary proceeding against such individual. The proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to § 263.97 and shall be initiated by a complaint issued by the Board that names the individual as a respondent. Except in cases when time, the nature of the proceeding, or the public interest do not permit, a proceeding under this section shall not be instituted until the respondent has been informed, in writing, of the facts or conduct which warrant institution of a proceeding and the respondent has been accorded the opportunity to comply with all lawful requirements or take whatever action may be necessary to remedy the conduct that is the basis for the initiation of the proceeding.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 195 (Friday, October 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 52247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on the National Health Service 
Corps (NHSC).
    Dates and Times: November 12, 2009, 3 p.m.-5:15 p.m.; November 
13, 2009, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.; and November 14, 2009, 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 
1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: 301-468-1100.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.
    Agenda: The Council will be convening in Rockville, Maryland, to 
hear updates from the Agency and the Bureau of Clinician Recruitment 
and Service, discuss recruitment strategies for the NHSC and address 
current workforce issues.
    For Further Information Contact: CDR Albert Perrine, Bureau of 
Clinician Recruitment and Service, Health Resources and Services 
Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 8A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84e5f4e1f6f6edeae1c4ecf6f7e5aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcddccd9ceced5d2d9fcd4cecfdd92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone: 301-443-
4543.

    Dated: October 2, 2009.
Alexandra Huttinger,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. E9-24394 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2010249EN.01000601.xml

| 16.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/6

---

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

2010/C 249/07

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption | : | 10 February 2010 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 62229 |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Type of measure | : | n.a. |
| Economic sectors | : | Electricity delivery contract |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Nord-Trøndelag Fylkeskommune |
| Fylkets Hus |
| 3335 Steinkjer |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption

:

10 February 2010

Case number

:

62229

EFTA State

:

Norway

Type of measure

:

n.a.

Economic sectors

:

Electricity delivery contract

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Nord-Trøndelag Fylkeskommune

Fylkets Hus

3335 Steinkjer

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/

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

s0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138617

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138617 COA: 289614 Wayne CC: 96-001612 CELSO ECHAVARRIA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
§ 243.10 Consultation. Before issuing any notice of deficiencies under § 243.8(b), determining to impose requirements or restrictions under § 243.9(a), or issuing a divestiture order pursuant to § 243.9(c) with respect to a covered company that is likely to have a significant impact on a functionally regulated subsidiary or a depository institution subsidiary of the covered company, the Board— ( a ) Shall consult with each Council member that primarily supervises any such subsidiary; and
( b ) May consult with any other Federal, state, or foreign supervisor as the Board considers appropriate.
# C_2014217EN.01001001.xml

| 10.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/10

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2014/C 217/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 19 March 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 74978 |
| Decision number | : | 124/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | NCE Instrumentation innovation cluster |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid for cluster animation |
| Objective | : | Promotion of innovation |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | Overall budget: NOK 60 million |
| Duration | : | Until July 2016 |
| Economic sectors | : | Manufacturing industry. Electrical and optical equipment |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Innovation Norway |
| PO Box 448 |
| Sentrum, Akersgata 13 |
| NO-0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

19 March 2014

Case number

Case number

:

74978

Decision number

Decision number

:

124/14/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

NCE Instrumentation innovation cluster

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid for cluster animation

Objective

Objective

:

Promotion of innovation

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

Budget

:

Overall budget: NOK 60 million

Duration

Duration

:

Until July 2016

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Manufacturing industry. Electrical and optical equipment

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Innovation Norway

PO Box 448

Sentrum, Akersgata 13

NO-0104 Oslo

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/

---
# C_2020243EN.01001201.xml

| 23.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/12

---

EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 May 2020

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004
   (1)

  )

(2020/C 243/06)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.

The base rates for Iceland and Norway as from 1 May, have been updated in light of exceptional circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic.

Base rates have been determined as follows:

| | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.5.2020 – | 2,78 | –0,56 | 0,99 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1.5.2020 –

2,78

–0,56

0,99

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7405

WILLIAM JAMES JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-342-5-H) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William James Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William James Jones, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) because the motion should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Stansberry , No. CA05-342-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2005). We deny Jones’ motion to file a formal brief and 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
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC
SPA Rental, LLC, d/b/a MSI Aviation, Complainant,


### v. Somerset- Pulaski County Airport Board, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ORDER FAA Docket No
. 16-13-02

On December 23,2015, counsel for Complainant, SPA Rental, LLC, d/b/a MSI Aviation, filed a motion pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19, requesting leave to file a Reply to Respondent's Brief(Reply to Appeal) on or before January 22, 2016, in the matter of the Complainant's appeal ofthe Director's Determination, FAA Docket No
. 16-13-02, dated September 1, 2015. Counsel advised that there are "numerous misstatement offact which are contrary or are unsupported by the record." Counsel advised that at least three weeks were required to prepare and file a reply. Respondent did not respond to this motion. Part 16 is intended to expedite the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. 

### See Rules ofPractice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). Under 14 CFR 

### § 16.33 the procedures for appeals ofa Director's Determination provide for a Notice ofAppeal and Briefas well as a Reply to an Appeal Brief. There are no provisions for additional briefings (e.g., Reply to a Reply, Surreply, or Rebuttal). The FAA has considered your motion. When issuing a Final Agency Decision, the Associate Administrator considers the issues raised in the Notice ofAppeal and determines whether the conclusions in the Director's Determination are in accordance with law, precedent, and policy and whether the findings offact are supported by the record. The Associate Administrator's review should uncover any misstatements of fact contained in any briefing ifsuch misstatement is unsupported by the record. For this reason, FAA has determined an additional pleading is unnecessary and will serve only to delay the resolution ofthis matter.

### Accordingly, Complainant' s motion for leave to file a Reply to Respondent's Briefis 

### DE NIED.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January



# ~ 2016, I caused to be emailed and placed inthe United States mail (first class, postage paid) a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:
Counsel for Complainant Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402 your

_lawyer@sbcglobal.net Counsel for Respondent Rachel Owsley Bethany A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 rowsley@stites.com bbreetz@stites.com Copies hand-delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-l00

Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20055

Summary Calendar

ISAIAH HICKS

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-2208

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isaiah Hicks, Texas prisoner # 1087433, appeals the dismissal as time

barred of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his aggravated robbery

conviction. Hicks was granted a certificate of appealability on the issue

“whether the limitations period should have been equitably tolled because [he]

did not receive notice of the denial of his state habeas application.” Hicks v.

Quarterman, No. 07-20055 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2007) (unpublished). Hicks,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20055

2

however, has failed to brief that issue and has therefore waived its review. See

Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arrow Resources
      Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on September
      30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Peter FrugonePeter
                FrugoneChief
                Executive Officer








Date: November
      14, 2007.
#### FILTSCH v. CREIDER et al.

No. 30958.

Oct. 19, 1943.

*142 P. 2d 123.*

W. M. Taylor, of Cushing, for plaintiff in error.

Embry & Sutton, of Chandler, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to confirm sheriff’s sale. On the 27th day of December, 1934, plaintiff, Fannie Filtsch, obtained judgment against the defendants, W. C. Creider, Julia A. Creider, and R. E. Dickson, for $1,500, with attorney fees and costs. The judgment also foreclosed a mortgage lien on certain real property in the city of Chandler, Okla. The property was sold on the 9th day of December, 1935, for $800, the purchaser being the plaintiff.

On the 11th day of December, 1935, the plaintiff filed a motion to confirm sale. On the 13th day of December, 1935, the defendant R. E. Dickson, purchaser from W. C. Creider and Julia Creider and former owner and in possession qf the premises, filed objections to the confirmation of sale. The matter came on for hearing on the motion to confirm sale and numerous objections filed thereto, and on the 16th day of January, 1942, the trial court denied the motion to confirm sale and the sole reason for refusal to confirm was the failure to satisfy the deficiency judgment.

Plaintiff appeals and the sole allegation of error presented is the refusal of the trial court to confirm the sale unless the deficiency judgment is satisfied.

Soon after the sale of the property the plaintiff took possession of the premises and is at this time in possession. The testimony offered on the motion to confirm sale shows that the premises were in a dilapidated condition when plaintiff assumed possession thereof. Plaintiff has made certain substantial improvements since taking possession.

We are of the opinion, and hold, that the court erred in refusing to confirm the sale. Local Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Oklahoma City v. Marts, 174 Okla. 130, 51 P. 2d 492; State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Keen, 187 Okla. 179, 102 P. 2d 143; State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. District Court of Custer County, 185 Okla. 597, *20995 P. 2d 851; Fisher v. Keen, 187 Okla. 5, 100 P. 2d 859.

Defendant asserts that the plaintiff has been guilty of laches; that the plaintiff' has reaped inequitable benefits by obtaining possession of the premises, and there was presented' an equitable question to the trial court authorizing the court to confirm or refuse to confirm the sale. With this contention we cannot agree. Within two days after the motion to confirm sale was filed,. defendant filed objection to the confirmation. The motion to confirm the sale was filed almost immediately after sale. Since that time there is no indication that the defendant has sought a determination of the irregularity of the proceedings and there is no suggestion of such irregularity.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate the order refusing to confirm sale and to enter an order confirming sale.

CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. OSBORN and BAYLESS, JJ., absent.
# Official Journal L 46/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 46 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6218 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 46

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6218 February 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2019/267 of 12 February 2019 on the conclusion of the Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Albania | 1 |
| | | Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Albania | 3 |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/268 of 15 February 2019 amending Regulations (EU) No 200/2010, (EU) No 517/2011, (EU) No 200/2012 and (EU) No 1190/2012 as regards certain methods for Salmonella testing and sampling in poultry (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2019/269 of 12 February 2019 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions | 17 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2019/267 of 12 February 2019 on the conclusion of the Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Albania

1

Status Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Albania on actions carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Albania

3

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/268 of 15 February 2019 amending Regulations (EU) No 200/2010, (EU) No 517/2011, (EU) No 200/2012 and (EU) No 1190/2012 as regards certain methods for Salmonella testing and sampling in poultry (
  1
  )

Salmonella

1

11

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2019/269 of 12 February 2019 appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions

17

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
§ 303.5 Effect of Community Reinvestment Act performance on filings. Among other factors, the FDIC takes into account the record of performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of each applicant in considering a filing for approval of: ( a ) The establishment of a domestic branch;
( b ) The relocation of the bank's main office or a domestic branch;
( c ) The relocation of an insured branch of a foreign bank;
( d ) A transaction subject to the Bank Merger Act; and
( e ) Deposit insurance.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

# SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Theragenics Corporation®, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, M. Christine Jacobs, President and Chief
Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

By:/s/ M. Christine
Jacobs

M.
Christine Jacobs     Chief Executive Officer     August
14, 2003