alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015183EN.01000801.xml

| 4.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/8

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 25 November 2014

in Case E-4/13

Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

v

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Article 38 SCA — ESA’s Rules on public access to documents 2012)

(2015/C 183/09)

In Case E-4/13, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s (‘ESA’) Decision of 7 February 2013 to deny access to the inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak) after the Court annulled ESA’s first decision on 21 December 2012 in Case E-14/11. The contested decision was made under the new rules on public access to documents that ESA enacted on 5 September 2012 by way of Decision No 300/12/COL (‘RAD 2012’) (not published in the Official Journal), which was given retroactive effect to DB Schenker’s access request of 3 August 2010, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, made an order on 25 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

v

The Court hereby:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicants are to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants are to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;

| 3. | Posten Norge AS is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Posten Norge AS is to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2022183EN.01000701.xml

| 5.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/7

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2022/C 183/07)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | 17 December 2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 87805 |
| Decision No | 299/21/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 Prolongation of the compensation scheme for cancelled and downscaled cultural events |
| Legal basis | Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for cancelled, closed or downscaled cultural event in the period 1 July to 31 October 2021 as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | To compensate for eligible costs caused by events being cancelled or downscaled due to restrictions or recommendations issued by the authorities to slow down the spread of COVID-19 |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | NOK 425 million (approx. EUR 41 million) |
| Intensity | For eligible organisers, a grant of up to 95 % of unavoidable costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 July – 31 October 2021.
  For eligible subcontractors, 50 % of loss of income and additional costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 July – 31 October 2021. |
| Duration | Until 30 June 2022 |
| Economic sectors | Cultural sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Arts Council Norway |
| P.O. Box 4808 Nydalen |
| N-0422 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

17 December 2021

Case No

87805

Decision No

299/21/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 Prolongation of the compensation scheme for cancelled and downscaled cultural events

Legal basis

Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for cancelled, closed or downscaled cultural event in the period 1 July to 31 October 2021 as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

To compensate for eligible costs caused by events being cancelled or downscaled due to restrictions or recommendations issued by the authorities to slow down the spread of COVID-19

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

NOK 425 million (approx. EUR 41 million)

Intensity

For eligible organisers, a grant of up to 95 % of unavoidable costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 July – 31 October 2021.

For eligible subcontractors, 50 % of loss of income and additional costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 July – 31 October 2021.

Duration

Until 30 June 2022

Economic sectors

Cultural sector

Name and address of the granting authority

Arts Council Norway

P.O. Box 4808 Nydalen

N-0422 Oslo

NORWAY

Other information

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

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

---
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 Thomas Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank Tilley, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the Company, certify
that:



/s/ FRANK W. TILLEY Frank W. Tilley Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
Principal Financial Officer


March 24,
2011

---



QuickLinks
§ 313.98 Ending garnishment. ( a ) Once the FDIC has fully recovered the amounts owed by the debtor, including interest, penalties, and administrative costs consistent with the FCCS, the FDIC will send the debtor's employer notification to discontinue wage withholding.
( b ) At least annually, the FDIC will review its debtors' accounts to ensure that garnishment has been terminated for accounts that have been paid in full.
Exhibit 32

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 Dynatem, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter
ending February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

Dated: April 13, 2007



/s/ MICHAEL HORANMichael HoranChief Executive Officer/s/ BELEN RAMOSBelen RamosChief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24710]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to delete products previously 
furnished by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or 
have other severe disabilities.
    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 11/17/2014.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:  Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 USC 
8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested 
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the 
Procurement List:

Products

Clamp, Loop/Cushion Type AMS3839

NSN: 5340-00-410-6441
NSN: 5340-00-411-2953
NPA: Provail, Seattle, WA
Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, 
Philadelphia, PA

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-24710 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
§ 229.15 General disclosure requirements. ( a ) *Form of disclosures.* A bank shall make the disclosures required by this subpart clearly and conspicuously in writing. Disclosures, other than those posted at locations where employees accept consumer deposits and ATMs and the notice on preprinted deposit slips, must be in a form that the customer may keep. The disclosures shall be grouped together and shall not contain any information not related to the disclosures required by this subpart. If contained in a document that sets forth other account terms, the disclosures shall be highlighted within the document by, for example, use of a separate heading.
( b ) *Uniform reference to day of availability.* In its disclosure, a bank shall describe funds as being available for withdrawal on “the __________ business day after” the day of deposit. In this calculation, the first business day is the business day following the banking day the deposit was received, and the last business day is the day on which the funds are made available.
( c ) *Multiple accounts and multiple account holders.* A bank need not give multiple disclosures to a customer that holds multiple accounts if the accounts are subject to the same availability policies. Similarly, a bank need not give separate disclosures to each customer on a jointly held account.
( d ) *Dormant or inactive accounts.* A bank need not give availability disclosures to a customer that holds a dormant or inactive account.
CITY COURT OF NEW YOEK, GENERAL TEEM,

OCTOBER, 1900.

#### Jacob Jacoby, Respondent, *v.*Morris Fox, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff.

Black, Olcott, Gruber *&*Bonynge (Abraham Gruber and T. B. Chancellor, of counsel), for appellant.

A. & C. Steckler, for respondent.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J.

We think that the record shows that the plaintiff discharged his duties in a careful, workmanlike manner. Of course, in cases of this character, the defendant is expected to submit evidence to the contrary. Thus a question of fact is presented which must be submitted to the jury, as was done in this instance; and their finding in the plaintiff’s favor we shall not disturb, as the evidence is more than sufficient to sustain it. Even the certificate of the defendant himself shows that the plaintiff was a good and able designer and, while in his employ, made garments a perfect fit, and that he was an honest and trustworthy man. In the face of this certificate and the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor, surely the jury were justified in rendering a verdict in his favor.

We think that the trial justice was correct in his charge, “ That plaintiff was only required to substantially perform his contract ” — particularly, in view of his explanation of his meaning and intention in so charging, because he immediately explained to the jury that by so charging he meant to say that plaintiff was required to perform his contract except in *technical*and trivial matters, leaving the jury clearly to infer that, if they found that plaintiff, in any substantial manner or thing, failed to perform his contract, he could not recover. In our judgment, this is a fair and reasonable interpretation of the justice’s charge, and as so viewed no error was committed.

Finding no error, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Conlan and Hascall, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
F i s h

C r e e k 

T i n g m

i a

k s i q v i k R i v e r 

K i k i a k r o r a k

R i v e r 

K o g o s u k r u k

R i v e r 

J u d y

Cr e e k 

Migu akiak R. 

C o l v i l l e 

Ikpikp

uk 

River 

R

i

v

e

r 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Atigaru Point 

Cape Halkett 

H a r r i s o n

B

a y 

B e a u f o r t

S e a 

1 E 

9 

2 

11 

8 

4 

6 

9 N 

tt Point 

A R C T I C O C E A N

Cape Simpson 

Pi

Sm ith Bay 

15 N

4 3 2 1 W 12 11 10 8 7 6 5

T e s h e k p u k L a k e Kogru R. 14

13

12

10

2 3 4 5

1 W 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

5

3

2

1 N 

2 3 4 5

1 W 1 E 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

1 S 

TESHEKPUK LAKE CARIBOU

Oestrid Fly Season

3

Fixed Kernal Probability 

50% 95% 4

75% 50%

99% 0 6 12

Miles 

5

6

Source: ABR Inc. - Environmental Research and Services

Map 3-24. Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd Oestrid Fly Relief Areas in the Northeast National Petroleum ReserveAlaska (1990 - 2005 Satellite Telemetry Data) 

7 

2
§ 303.86 Processing. ( a ) *Acceptance of notice, additional information.* The FDIC shall notify the person or persons submitting a notice under this subpart in writing of the date the notice is accepted as substantially complete. The FDIC may request additional information at any time.
( b ) *Commencement of the 60-day notice period: consummation of acquisition.* ( 1 ) The 60-day notice period specified in § 303.82 shall commence on the day after the date of acceptance of a substantially complete notice by the appropriate regional director. The notificant(s) may consummate the proposed acquisition after the expiration of the 60-day notice period, unless the FDIC disapproves the proposed acquisition or extends the notice period as provided in the CBCA.
( 2 ) The notificant(s) may consummate the proposed transaction before the expiration of the 60-day period, including any extensions, if the FDIC notifies the notificant(s) in writing of its intention not to disapprove the acquisition.
( c ) *Disapproval of acquisition of control.* Subpart D of 12 CFR part 308 sets forth the rules of practice and procedure for a notice of disapproval.
Order entered September 1 5 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 20 - 00300 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 00301 - CR MIGUEL JOSE RIVERA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F19 - 11498 - V & F16 - 29747 - V ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s September 4, 2020 motion to supplement the record. Appellant requests to supplement the record with material underlying State’s Exhibit 16

— a witness’s curriculum vitae listing several pages of seminars and workshops which the witness had either attended or at which she had delivered lectures. Appellant contends that because the State cited the witness’s participation in the events listed as the basis for her expertise, any seminar or workshop– 2

– materials became part of the exhibit and appellant is entitled to supplement the record with this additional material. The record shows the State admitted into evide nce for record purposes a “ten

- page curriculum vitae” as State’s Exhibit 16. The document filed in the appellate record as State’s Exhibit 16 is a ten

- page curriculum vitae. Appellant does not allege that any seminar or workshop documents were before the t rial court. Nothing in the portion of the record appellant cites shows the trial court reviewed any seminar or workshop documents or even that such documents exist. “While the record may be supplemented under the appellate rules if something has been omitt ed, the supplementation rules cannot be used to create new evidence.” Whitehead v. State , 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Our review of the record is generally limited to the evidence that was before the trial court. Id . Because it does not app ear that there is a dispute about what was considered at trial, but rather an attempt to supplement the reporter’s record with documents that were not part of the trial court proceedings, we DENY appellant’s motion to supplement the record. After three ext ensions, appellant’s brief was due on September 4, 2020

. Appellant is ORDERED to file his brief on or before October 9, 2020.
/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA

                                                                  March 29, 2000

    For value received, the Digital Photo Store, Inc. promises to pay RX
TECHNOLOGY, INC. ("Holder"), all sums borrowed hereunder and as recorded in the
financial accounts of Holder plus interest at 8% per annum on December 31, 2000.

    All obligations contained herein shall be governed by Louisiana law and the
applicable laws of the United States of America and any litigation relating to
the obligations contained herein shall be conducted exclusively before the
courts of the State of Louisiana, the parties hereto consenting to the
jurisdiction of said courts.

                                          The Digital Photo Store, Inc.
                                          By:
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. FRANCIS CORDIA, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

November 12, 1912.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR: Illegal Sales: Sufficiency of Record. In a prosecution for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor by a merchant, in violation of See. 11640, R. S_. 1909, *held*that record does not disclose any error or irregularity justifying a reversal of the judgment of conviction,

'Appeal from Washington Circuit *Court.*— Eon. *Joseph J. Williams,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*M. E. Rhoades*and *Byrns <& Bean*for appellant.

*W. A. Cooper*and *S. C. Nipper*for respondent.

CAULFIELD, J.

Defendant was indicted, tried ■and, on September 7, 1910, convicted, under section 11640 of the Revised -'Statutes of Missouri 1909, for selling intoxicating liquor in less quantity than five gallons, he being a merchant, having a merchant’s li- cense authorizing him to deal in goods, ware and mer"chandise, but no dramshop license. He appeals to this ■ court but has assigned no error and filed- no brief here. Having examined the record we find no error, "insufficiency, or irregularity in the indictment, trial or other proceedings, justifying a reversal- of the judgment, and find that the evidence warrants the conviction and the instructions fairly present the case to the jury.

.The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

*Reynolds, P. J.,*and *Nortoni, J.,*concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2984 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2984

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to remove the requirement that 
  processors be members of an agency administering a marketing order 
                          applicable to pears.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PEAR MARKETING ORDERS.

    Section 8c(7)(C) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
608c(7)(C)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937, is amended in the last sentence--
            (1) by striking ``or pears''; and
            (2) by striking ``: Provided,'' and all that follows 
        through ``be equal''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 5, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                        STERLING CHEMICALS HOLDINGS, INC.
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
                  (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED             NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                         JUNE 30,                       JUNE 30,
                                                                  ----------------------        ----------------------
                                                                    2000          1999            2000          1999
                                                                  --------      --------        --------      --------
<S>                                                               <C>           <C>             <C>           <C>
     BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE

Weighted average number of shares of common
  stock outstanding                                                 12,690        12,516          12,651        12,469

Net income (loss)                                                 $    575      $(16,415)       $ (6,486)     $(54,335)
Less: preferred dividend requirements and accretion                   (751)         (672)         (2,208)       (1,975)
Plus: depreciation (appreciation) of value of Released Shares         (431)           --            (431)        1,048
                                                                  --------      --------        --------      --------
Net loss used in basic loss per share                             $   (607)     $(17,087)       $ (9,125)     $(55,262)
                                                                  ========      ========        ========      ========
     BASIC LOSS PER SHARE                                         $  (0.05)     $  (1.37)       $  (0.72)     $  (4.43)
                                                                  ========      ========        ========      ========

     DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

Weighted average number of shares of common
stock outstanding                                                   12,690        12,516          12,651        12,469

Net income (loss)                                                 $    575      $(16,415)       $ (6,486)     $(54,335)
Less: preferred dividend requirements and accretion                   (751)         (672)         (2,208)       (1,975)
Plus: depreciation (appreciation) of value of Released Shares         (431)           --            (431)        1,048
                                                                  --------      --------        --------      --------
Net loss used in diluted loss per share                           $   (607)     $(17,087)       $ (9,125)     $(55,262)
                                                                  ========      ========        ========      ========
         DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE                                   $  (0.05)     $  (1.37)       $  (0.72)     $  (4.43)
</TABLE>