alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 308.509 Default upon failure to file an answer. ( a ) If the defendant does not file an answer within the time prescribed in § 308.508(a) of this subpart, the reviewing official may refer the complaint to the ALJ.
( b ) Upon the referral of the complaint, the ALJ will promptly serve on defendant in the manner prescribed in § 308.507 of this subpart, a notice that an initial decision will be issued under this section.
( c ) If the defendant fails to answer, the ALJ will assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and, if such facts establish liability under § 308.502 of this subpart, the ALJ will issue an initial decision imposing the maximum amount of penalties and assessments allowed under the statute.
( d ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by failing to file a timely answer, the defendant waives any right to further review of the penalties and assessments imposed under paragraph (c) of this section, and the initial decision will become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after it is issued.
( e ) If, before such an initial decision becomes final, the defendant files a motion with the ALJ seeking to reopen on the grounds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the defendant from filing an answer, the initial decision will be stayed pending the ALJ's decision on the motion.
( f ) If, in the motion to reopen under paragraph (e) of this section, the defendant can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the failure to file a timely answer, the ALJ will withdraw the initial decision in paragraph (c) of this section, if such a decision has been issued, and will grant the defendant an opportunity to answer the complaint.
( g ) A decision of the ALJ denying a defendant's motion to reopen under paragraph (e) of this section is not subject to reconsideration under § 308.537 of this subpart.
( h ) The decision denying the motion to reopen under paragraph (e) of this section may be appealed by the defendant to the Board by filing a notice of appeal with the Board within 15 days after the ALJ denies the motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal will stay the initial decision until the Board decides the issue.
( i ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the Board, the ALJ will forward the record of the proceeding to the Board.
( j ) The Board will decide whether extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer based solely on the record before the ALJ.
( k ) If the Board decides that extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer, the Board will remand the case to the ALJ with instructions to grant the defendant an opportunity to answer.
( l ) If the Board decides that the defendant's failure to file a timely answer is not excused, the Board will reinstate the initial decision of the ALJ, which will become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the Board issues such decision.
# C_2019315EN.01000701.xml

| 19.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-6/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/52/EU)

(2019/C 315/08)

In Case E-6/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted by Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
# C_2016413EN.01000701.xml

| 10.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/7

---

No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2016/C 413/07)

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 | : | 17 June 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 79159 |
| Decision No | : | 130/16/2016 |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Sale of electricity to Thorsil |
| Legal basis | : | Power contract signed between Thorsil ehf. and Landsvirkjun |
| Type of measure | : | No state aid |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

17 June 2016

Case No

Case No

:

79159

Decision No

Decision No

:

130/16/2016

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Sale of electricity to Thorsil

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Power contract signed between Thorsil ehf. and Landsvirkjun

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

No state aid

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/

---
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Davidson Growth Plus, L.P.(the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), StevenD. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
§ 313.4 Delegations of authority. Authority to conduct the following activities is delegated as follows: Authority to collect debt, other than criminal restitution debt and civil money penalty debt, on behalf of the FDIC in its corporate capacity is delegated to the Director of DOA or Director of DOF, as applicable, or to the applicable Director's designee; and authority to collect criminal restitution debt on behalf of the FDIC in either its receivership or corporate capacity is delegated to the Director of DRR, or to her or his designee. These individuals, under the delegations in this section, may do the following: ( a ) Initiate and carry out the debt collection process on behalf of the FDIC, in accordance with the FCCS;
( b ) Accept or reject compromise offers and suspend or terminate collection actions to the full extent of the FDIC's legal authority under 12 U.S.C. 1819(a) and 1820(a), 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2), and any other applicable statute or regulation, provided, however, that no such claim shall be compromised or collection action terminated, except upon the concurrence of the FDIC General Counsel or his or her designee;
( c ) Report to consumer reporting agencies certain data pertaining to delinquent debts, where appropriate;
( d ) Use administrative offset procedures, including salary offset, to collect debts; and
( e ) Take any other action necessary to promptly and effectively collect debts owed to the United States in accordance with the policies contained herein and as otherwise provided by law.
59–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–235 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 3043) MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL 

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JULY 16, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 547] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 547, 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 of the bill H.R. 3043, 

making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, under an 

open rule. The resolution provides for one hour of general debate 

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 

the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The resolution waives 

points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 

with clause 2 of rule XXI. During consideration of the bill for 

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with 

or without instructions. Finally, the resolution permits the Chair, 

during consideration of the bill in the House, to postpone further 

consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

(except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI) includes a waiver of rule 

XIII, clause 4(a), requiring a three-day layover of a committee report. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

The waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) 

against provisions in the bill is included because the bill contains 

unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
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-Q of Arrow Resources
      Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on June 30,
      2008, 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
                FrugoneDate:
                August 19, 2008.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,277,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,552,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,549,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,136,000
<PP&E>                                       9,122,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,373,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,778,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,551,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,373,000
<SALES>                                     10,402,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,402,000
<CGS>                                       10,020,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,020,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,479,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             224,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,279,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (119,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,160,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  25,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,135,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
<FN>
<F1><Period Start> and <Period End> reflect only the quarter ended 12/31/96 since
comparable balance sheets are included for 3/31/96, while the Statement of
Operations compares disparate quarters for the current and includes pro forma
presentation for the prior year.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND CITY OF LINDEN, RESPONDENTS.

Argued January 16, 1940

Decided February 23, 1940.

Before Justices Bodine and Perskie.

For the prosecutor, *McDermott, Enright & Carpenter (James D. Carpenter).*

For the city of Linden, *Lewis Winetsky.*

Bodine, J.

The writ of *certiorari*in this case brings up for review the judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals dismissing an appeal from an assessment of personal property situate in the city of Linden for the year 1938, in the sum of $2,500,000. The personal property involved consists of furniture, fixtures, machinery, tools and equipment used in the assembly of automobiles, the parts that were to be used in the cars when assembled and the cars assembled awaiting delivery.

There was, we think, no error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the defendant had not overcome the presumption of the validity of the assessment by the proofs introduced.

One of the witnesses testified that the tools, machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures at the plant on the taxing day, October 1st, 1937, were of the value of $731,618. On the other hand, these items were carried on the books of the company at $2,130,611.96, representing costs less an allow*213anco of ten per cent, for depreciation. The board could hardly have accepted a valuation which would treat such personal property as of less value than prosecutor’s own inventory. Nor do we feel that after six months of use the conveyors, and other machinery, would only have a salvage value.

Further, we do not think that the board would have been justified in taking for assessment purposes the average of book values of materials on hand in the manner suggested by the expert. The books of the concern showed that the company always had on hand sufficient parts for assembly to secure an operation for at least a five-day period, and that such materials had a book value of at least $395,815. Further, the proofs show that the company had on hand a daily average of 357 cars, having an approximate value of $218,598.

Clearly, the assessment as made was not excessive by reason of the evidence adduced. The validity thereof was demonstrated by the actual facts adduced from the witnesses called by the prosecutor and from the books of the concern. For the board to have arrived at a different result it would have been obliged to substitute for the facts the conclusions of witnesses called by the prosecutor. All the matters urged for a reversal have been carefully considered.

The judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals will be affirmed and the writ will be dismissed, with costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24003]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 5, 2009. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Disaster Assistance Customer Feedback Survey.
    SBA Form Number: 2313.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: SBIC Investment Companies.
    Responses: 24,284.
    Annual Burden: 2,014.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-24003 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
§ 303.250 Modification of conditions. ( a ) *Scope.* This section contains the procedures to be followed by an insured depository institution to seek the prior consent of the FDIC to modify the requirement of a prior approval of a filing issued by the FDIC.
( b ) *Where to file.* Applicants should submit a letter application to the appropriate FDIC regional director.
( c ) *Content of filing.* The application should contain the following information: ( 1 ) A description of the original approved application;
( 2 ) A description of the modification requested; and
( 3 ) The reason for the request.
( d ) *Additional information.* The FDIC may request additional information at any time during processing of the filing.
( e ) *Processing.* The FDIC will provide the applicant with a written notification of the final action as soon as the decision is rendered.
[67 FR 79247, Dec. 27, 2002. Redesignated at 71 FR 20526, Apr. 21, 2006]
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of Summa Four, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-2596, 33-69614, 33-69616,
33-69618, 33-69620, and 33-69622) of our report dated May 5, 1997, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Summa Four, Inc. as of March 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years
ended March 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.




 
                                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
June 20, 1997



                                       41