alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008017EN.01001101.xml

| 24.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/11

---

Order of the EFTA Court of 3 October 2007

(Case E-9/04)

(2008/C 17/07)

In Case E-9/04 COSTS II,

The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority,

(Taxation of costs)

In Case E-9/04 COSTS II, the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, represented by Dr Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, Belgium and Dr Ralf Sauer, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, Germany against EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director, and Bjørnar Alterskjær, Officer, Department of Legal and Executive Affairs, acting as Agents, Brussels, Belgium — application for taxation of the costs to be recovered from the EFTA Surveillance Authority by the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland pursuant to the judgment of the EFTA Court of 7 April 2006 in Case E-9/04 The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2006 EFTA Court Report, p. 45] — the EFTA Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur, and Skúli Magnússon, Registrar, has made an Order of 3 October 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland

EFTA Surveillance Authority

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland is fixed at EUR 145 934,50.

---
```

[House Report 106-637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-637

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3916, A BILL TO AMEND THE 
  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO REPEAL THE EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND 
  OTHER COMMUNICATION SERVICES

                                _______
                                

May 23, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 511]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 511, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for consideration in the House of 
H.R. 3916, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communication 
services, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill.
    The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as adopted upon adoption of the resolution. Finally, 
the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    The waiver of all points of order includes a waiver of 
clause 4(a) of rule XIII (requiring a three-day layover of the 
committee report) because the report was not filed until 
Monday, May 22, and the bill may be considered by the House as 
early as Wednesday, May 24.

                                  

```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36




FLEET BANK



August 2, 1994


Mr. Thomas A. St. Germain
Chief Financial Officer
Summa Four, Inc.
25 Sundial Avenue
Manchester, NH  03103



Dear Tom:

Reference is hereby made to the letter agreement executed by and between Summa
Four, Inc. and Fleet Bank of Massachusetts, N.A. as of October 15, 1992 and
amended as of July 28, 1993. We are pleased to inform you that we have approved
the following amendments to the agreement. All capitalized terms used herein
shall refer to those terms used in the letter agreement. Nothing herein shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver, release or amendment of any other terms of the
agreement.

1)       The Expiration Date of the Agreement is hereby extended until September
         1, 1995.

2)       The reduction of the Facility Fee to 1/8% of the facility is hereby
         formalized although it has been in effect since February 1, 1994.

3)       The Capital Base Requirement is reduced to $32,500,000 as of March 31,
         1994 and will continue to step up as called for in the Agreement.

4)       The company is hereby permitted to repurchase up to 500,000 shares of
         its common stock on the open market, as contemplated in the recently
         announced stock repurchase program.

Tom, we are pleased to continue our relationship with Summa Four and wish you
continued success. Please sign below and execute the attached note to evidence
your acceptance of this amendment.



Sincerely,



/s/Thomas W. Davies
----------------------------
Thomas W. Davies
Vice President
High Technology Group


Agreed and Accepted:    /s/Thomas A. St. Germain
                        -------------------------------           -------------
                 by:    Thomas A. St. Germain                     date:
                 title: S.V.P., CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                       2,215,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,368,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                   225,349
<INVENTORY>                                 11,729,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,623,258
<PP&E>                                      13,111,363
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,177,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,720,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,609,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,490
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,473,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,720,492
<SALES>                                     18,224,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,224,683
<CGS>                                       11,065,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,959,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (126,382)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,303,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                   535,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            768,114
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   768,114
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Russia’s Wrongful Detention of Journalist Evan Gershkovich

# 									Russia’s Wrongful Detention of Journalist Evan Gershkovich							

Press Statement

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

April 10, 2023

Today, Secretary Blinken made a determination that Evan Gershkovich is wrongfully detained by Russia.

Journalism is not a crime.  We condemn the Kremlin’s continued repression of independent voices in Russia, and its ongoing war against the truth.

The U.S. government will provide all appropriate support to Mr. Gershkovich and his family.  We call for the Russian Federation to immediately release Mr. Gershkovich.

We also call on Russia to release wrongfully detained U.S. citizen Paul Whelan.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonPress FreedomRussiaOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs

Back to Top
# C_2011182EN.01001201.xml

| 23.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/12

---

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

2011/C 182/09

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 23 March 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 69193 |
| Decision number | : | 88/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Scheme on support for innovation companies |
| Legal basis | : | Act No 152/2009 on support for innovation companies |
| Type of measure | : | Aid scheme |
| Objective | : | To improve and foster research and development |
| Form of aid | : | Tax credit |
| Aid intensity | : | 20 % of maximum ISK 100-150 million |
| Economic sectors | : | All |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

23 March 2011

Case number

:

69193

Decision number

:

88/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Scheme on support for innovation companies

Legal basis

:

Act No 152/2009 on support for innovation companies

Type of measure

:

Aid scheme

Objective

:

To improve and foster research and development

Form of aid

:

Tax credit

Aid intensity

:

20 % of maximum ISK 100-150 million

Economic sectors

:

All

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/

---
## NO. 12

- 19

- 00148

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CARLA KOLBER,

APPELLANT

V.

JAMES MOORE AND MELI NDA MOORE,

APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 1

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant , Carla Kolber, filed a notice of appeal from a February 25, 2019 order granting

a motion for award of expenses/sanctions filed by Appellees, James Moore and Melinda Moore,

and from a March 14, 2019 final judgment, to the extent that the February order merged with the

final judgment. On October 7, Ko lber filed an agreed motion to effectuate settlement

. The motion

states that the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter between them. Kolber requests

rendition of judgment setting aside the February 25 order

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 sets forth the actions that this Court may take i n

accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk

.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a) (2). We may: (A) render ju dgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B)

set aside the trial court’ s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and

permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreeme nt. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 2 )

. Accordingly, w e grant the agreed motion to effectuate settlement

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)( 2 ) (A)

. We render judgment setting aside the trial court’s order of February 25, 2019,2 without regard to the merits. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 2 ) (B)

. We remand the case to the trial

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 1 See id

. Opinion delivered October 1 7

, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

1 Kolber also requests that we dismiss the appeal. However, rendering judgment and remanding in accordance with Rule 42.1 disposes of this appeal without the need for dismissal.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 1 7 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00148

- CV

CARLA KOLBER, Appellant

V.

JAMES MOORE AND MELI NDA MOORE, Appellee s

Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 00195

- CCL

- 16)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the agreed motion of the Appellant to

effectuate settlement, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to effectuate settlement be granted ; judgment is

rendered setting aside the trial court’s February 25, 2019 order without regard to the merits; the

cause is remanded to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’

settlement agreement , and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
§ 208.72 What activities may a financial subsidiary conduct? ( a ) *Authorized activities.* A financial subsidiary of a state member bank may engage in only the following activities: ( 1 ) Any financial activity listed in § 225.86(a), (b), or (c) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.86(a), (b), or (c));
( 2 ) Any activity that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Board, has determined to be financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity and permissible for financial subsidiaries pursuant to Section 5136A(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 24a(b)); and
( 3 ) Any activity that the state member bank is permitted to engage in directly (subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the conduct of the activity by the state member bank).
( b ) *Impermissible activities.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a financial subsidiary may not engage as principal in the following activities: ( 1 ) Insuring, guaranteeing, or indemnifying against loss, harm, damage, illness, disability or death (except to the extent permitted under applicable state law and section 302 or 303(c) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6712 or 6713(c));
( 2 ) Providing or issuing annuities the income of which is subject to tax treatment under section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 72);
( 3 ) Real estate development or real estate investment, unless otherwise expressly authorized by applicable state and Federal law; and
( 4 ) Any merchant banking or insurance company investment activity permitted for financial holding companies by section 4(k)(4)(H) or (I) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)(4)(H) and (I)).
#### MARION & RYE VALLEY RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES

[60 C. Cls. 230; 270 U. S. 280]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Where the taking (if any) of a railroad, under the Federal control act, was purely technical, resulting from the generality of the President’s proclamation, etc., and the Director General did not in fact take over its possession or control or deal with it specifically in any way, so that it continued to be operated by the owner company as theretofore, without interference, the company could not maintain an action for “ just compensation” under section 3 of the act, since nothing of value was taken from it, it was subjected to no pecuniary loss by the Government, and nominal damages are not recoverable in the Court of Claims.

2. The Federal control act, in authorizing the President to agree with any carrier of whose railroad he took possession and control that it should “ receive as just compensation an annual sum * * * for each year, and pro rata for any fractional year of such Federal control, not exceeding a sum equivalent as nearly as may be to its average annual railway operating income for the three years ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and seventeen” (section 1), did not establish a rule *757of compensation applicable when there was no agreement, but relegated the carrier in that case to proceedings for the ascertainment of just compensation (section 3), in which the burden was on the carrier of proving the value of the use taken from it, or the damage suffered by it, under rules ordinarily applicable to takings by eminent domain.

3. Although section 3 of the Federal control act declares that, in such proceedings, the report of a board of referees appointed by the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be *prima, facie*evidence of the amount of just compensation and the facts stated therein, a report which by its face, and by the findings of the Court of Claims, is shown to have been based upon mere assumptions, without evidence of loss or damage, has no evidential value.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 1, 1926.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of DHB Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James F. Anderson, Chief Financial 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:

(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.



|                          |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                        
|------------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: September 28, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    JAMES F.
ANDERSON
|                          |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | James F. Anderson      
|                          |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant 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 for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 221.6 Exempted transactions. A bank may extend and maintain purpose credit without regard to the provisions of this part if such credit is extended: ( a ) To any bank;
( b ) To any foreign banking institution;
( c ) Outside the United States;
( d ) To an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) qualified under section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401);
( e ) To any plan lender as defined in § 221.4(a) to finance an eligible plan as defined in § 221.4(b), provided the bank has no recourse to any securities purchased pursuant to the plan;
( f ) To any customer, other than a broker or dealer, to temporarily finance the purchase or sale of securities for prompt delivery, if the credit is to be repaid in the ordinary course of business upon completion of the transaction and is not extended to enable the customer to pay for securities purchased in an account subject to part 220 of this chapter;
( g ) Against securities in transit, if the credit is not extended to enable the customer to pay for securities purchased in an account subject to part 220 of this chapter; or
( h ) To enable a customer to meet emergency expenses not reasonably foreseeable, and if the extension of credit is supported by a statement executed by the customer and accepted and signed by an officer of the bank acting in good faith. For this purpose, emergency expenses include expenses arising from circumstances such as the death or disability of the customer, or some other change in circumstances involving extreme hardship, not reasonably foreseeable at the time the credit was extended. The opportunity to realize monetary gain or to avoid loss is not a “change in circumstances” for this purpose.
#### § 1403.11 Criminal penalties.

Section 552a(i)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3)) makes it a misdemeanor, subject to a maximum fine of $5,000, to knowingly and willfully request or obtain any record concerning any individual from an agency under false pretenses. Sections 552a(i) (1) and (2) of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i) (1), (2)) provide penalties for violation by agency employees of the Act or regulations established thereunder.
# C_2010028EN.01002401.xml

| 4.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/24

---

List of natural mineral waters in Iceland and Norway pursuant to Article 1 of Council Directive 80/777/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters

(Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 23, 29.1.2009, p. 11 and EEA Supplement No 4, 29.1.2009, p. 1)

(Annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 23, 29.1.2009, p. 11 and EEA Supplement No 4, 29.1.2009, p. 1)

2010/C 28/10

LIST OF NATURAL MINERAL WATERS RECOGNISED BY ICELAND:

| Trade Name | Name of source | Place of exploitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Icelandic Glacial | Ölfus Spring | Hlíðarendi, Ölfus, Selfoss |

Trade Name

Name of source

Place of exploitation

Icelandic Glacial

Ölfus Spring

Hlíðarendi, Ölfus, Selfoss

LIST OF NATURAL MINERAL WATERS RECOGNISED BY NORWAY:

| Trade Name | Name of source | Place of exploitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Best naturlig mineralvann | Kastbrekka | Kambrekka/Trondheim |
| Bonaqua Silver | Telemark kilden | Fyresdal |
| Farris | Kong Olavs kilde | Larvik |
| Fjellbekk | Ivar Aasen kilde | Volda |
| Isklar | Isklar | Vikebygd i Ullensvang |
| Modal | Modal kilden | Fyresdal |
| Naturlig mineralvann fra Villmark kilden på Rustad Gård | Villmark kilden på Rustad gård | Rustad/Elverum |
| Olden | Blåfjell kilden | Olderdalen |
| Osa | Osa kilden | Ulvik/Hardanger |

Trade Name

Name of source

Place of exploitation

Best naturlig mineralvann

Kastbrekka

Kambrekka/Trondheim

Bonaqua Silver

Telemark kilden

Fyresdal

Farris

Kong Olavs kilde

Larvik

Fjellbekk

Ivar Aasen kilde

Volda

Isklar

Isklar

Vikebygd i Ullensvang

Modal

Modal kilden

Fyresdal

Naturlig mineralvann fra Villmark kilden på Rustad Gård

Villmark kilden på Rustad gård

Rustad/Elverum

Olden

Blåfjell kilden

Olderdalen

Osa

Osa kilden

Ulvik/Hardanger

---
#### § 263.17 Collateral attacks on adjudicatory proceeding.

If an interlocutory appeal or collateral attack is brought in any court concerning all or any part of an adjudicatory proceeding, the challenged adjudicatory proceeding will continue without regard to the pendency of that court proceeding. No default or other failure to act as directed in the adjudicatory proceeding within the times prescribed in this subpart will be excused based on the pendency before any court of any interlocutory appeal or collateral attack.