alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008040EN.01000401.xml

| 14.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/4

---

Notification from the Norwegian authorities concerning the prolongation of the reduced electricity tax for the regions of Finnmark and North Troms

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to raise objections against the notified measure

(2008/C 40/04)

| Date of adoption: | 10 October 2007 |
| --- | --- |
| EFTA State: | Norway |
| Aid No: | Case 62964 |
| Title: | Reduced electricity tax for the regions of Finnmark and North Troms |
| Objective: | Taxation of electricity mainly used as a substitute for fuels. The electricity tax should curb increases in electricity use and stimulate the use of alternative energies in certain regions. As undertakings in the notified regions find it hard to adapt to higher taxation, they still pay more than the minimum rate as provided for by Directive 2003/96/EC, thereby still having an incentive to curb electricity. |
| Legal basis: | Norwegian Parliament's annual decision on the electricity tax (Stortingets vedtak om forbruksavgift på elektrisk kraft) as well as the regulation on excise duties (Forskrift om særavgifter) |
| Budget: | NOK 70 million a year, approximately NOK 350 million for the period 2007-2011 |
| Duration: | 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2011 |

Date of adoption:

Date of adoption:

10 October 2007

EFTA State:

EFTA State:

Norway

Aid No:

Aid No:

Case 62964

Title:

Title:

Reduced electricity tax for the regions of Finnmark and North Troms

Objective:

Objective:

Taxation of electricity mainly used as a substitute for fuels. The electricity tax should curb increases in electricity use and stimulate the use of alternative energies in certain regions. As undertakings in the notified regions find it hard to adapt to higher taxation, they still pay more than the minimum rate as provided for by Directive 2003/96/EC, thereby still having an incentive to curb electricity.

Legal basis:

Legal basis:

Norwegian Parliament's annual decision on the electricity tax (Stortingets vedtak om forbruksavgift på elektrisk kraft) as well as the regulation on excise duties (Forskrift om særavgifter)

Stortingets vedtak om forbruksavgift på elektrisk kraft

Forskrift om særavgifter

Budget:

Budget:

NOK 70 million a year, approximately NOK 350 million for the period 2007-2011

Duration:

Duration:

1 January 2007 until 31 December 2011

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-80706 and 33-65756) pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Option Plan and the 1993 Director Stock Option Plan of OPTi, Inc. of our report dated June 26, 2009, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheet of OPTi, Inc. as of March 31, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the March 31, 2009 annualreport on Form 10-K of OPTi, Inc. 

/s/ ARMANINO McKENNA LLP 

San Ramon, California 

June 26, 2009
08/05/2010 10:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DM S @|001/001 

P/MNTIMuvC , W» l 1 ( UVkHlNl j i>>lClAl n . l'.niTINC,<i 

I..M.I. 

r,r-;\ft BrillmrxM'tt Roud 

nrmswn, 'rcxus 77041 

I'hone : (713) 856.S757 

i-'uA-;f7i3)er,<.">.8iH<'> 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building ~ Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

.•f..^; y^-^ ..- ^ ^- a w ^ (y?r-»^ ^.'--^ 

>^hB 1 ? 

'^-•Amno i^^M^ 

0PiDSyJm2./3i^i'^-^O 

LMl Painting is requesring to withdraw our request for a hearing. LMI is sending a copy 

this letter both to the FAA attorney who signed the Notice and to the Hearing Docket. 

Signal 

Name: /yf^/^^. ^,.pi 

Address: ^'^^>'^ B"> i^r^yH'^C. "^pAd 

Telephone: "?/J '^^^-g^l--V7 

Date: J- • K.o- 10 

Case No: .^^^^1 S w IdOJ. O t 

Tax ID Number; 7(p ^SrgV'^V
# C_2016447EN.01001101.xml

| 1.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 447/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 447/11

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2016/C 447/07)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 28 July 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 79243 |
| Decision No | : | 161/16/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Region | : | Vesturland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Silicor Materials |
| Legal basis | : | — | The Investment Agreement between Iceland and Hvalfjarðarsveit municipality on the one hand and Silicor Materials on the other; |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

28 July 2016

Case No

Case No

:

79243

Decision No

Decision No

:

161/16/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Region

Region

:

Vesturland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Silicor Materials

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

—

The Investment Agreement between Iceland and Hvalfjarðarsveit municipality on the one hand and Silicor Materials on the other;

| — | The Agreement between Faxaports sf. and Silicor Materials, as modified by a Supplemental Agreement of 20 April 2016, consisting of: i. Land Lease Agreement, ii. Agreement on allocation, iii. Port Terminal Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Agreement between Faxaports sf. and Silicor Materials, as modified by a Supplemental Agreement of 20 April 2016, consisting of: i. Land Lease Agreement, ii. Agreement on allocation, iii. Port Terminal Agreement.

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Investment aid (ad hoc)

Objective

Objective

:

Regional development

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Tax advantages/reduction of social security contributions/fee concessions/flexible lease provisions

Budget

Budget

:

EUR 23,3 million in NPV

Intensity

Intensity

:

5,5 %

Duration

Duration

:

10 years (30 years for lease provisions)

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Solar silicon industry

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

| Ministry of Industries and Innovation |
| --- |
| Skúlagötu 4 |
| 101 Reykjavik |
| ICELAND |

Ministry of Industries and Innovation

Skúlagötu 4

101 Reykjavik

ICELAND

Other information

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 website:

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

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
      ( print page 51611)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Special Emphasis Panel ZGMI-MBRS-X-CH.                    

*Date:*                         November 2, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency-Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.                     

*Contact Person:*                         John J. Laffan, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2773,                         *Iaffanjo@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 29, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-24029 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1 

# FILED July 14, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

WINDON H. TAYLOR and ) C/A NO. 01A01-9810-CV-00563 SARAH A. TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) ) v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE ) SUMNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ) ) ) T&N OFFICE EQUIPMENT, INC., ) JERALD W. NICHOLS and GAYLE J. ) NICHOLS, ) ) HONORABLE THOMAS GOODALL, Defendants-Appellants. ) JUDGE
For Appellant For Appellee LARRY L. CRAIN LOUIS W. OLIVER, III Brentwood, Tennessee Hendersonville, Tennessee



### MEMORANDUM OPI NION

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.1 See Taylor, et ux. v. T&N Office Equipment, Inc., et al ., C/A No.01A01-

9609-CV-00411, 1997 WL 272444 (Tenn.App. at Nashville, May 23, 1997).

2 The note provides for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and court and other costs” if it is “placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or for protection of...interest...in collateral.”

3 Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. 2 When this case was first before us, 1 we concluded that the trial court had failed to conduct a proper hearing on the subject of the attorney’s fees to which the appellees were entitled under the terms of the promissory note at issue in this
case. 2 We remanded this case to the trial court to hold such a hearing. The only issue now before us on this second appeal is whether the trial court’s subsequent award of attorney’s fees of $11,960.13 is reasonable, considering the criteria set forth in Disciplinary Rule 2-106(B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 8, Rules of the Supreme Court). Our de novo review of the record of the proceedings below convinces us that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination of a reasonable fee in this case. See Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.
The judgment below is affirmed, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals. 3 The appellees’ request for fees and expenses in connection with this appeal is denied. Costs on appeal are taxed against the appellants. This case is remanded to the trial court for such further proceedings, if any, as may be required, consistent with3

this opinion, and for the collection of costs assessed below, all pursuant to applicable law.

__________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:

________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.
#### §§ 217.4-217.9 [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-4099-001]

Lambert, Gary; Notice of Filing

September 29, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2009, Gary Lambert filed an 
application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant 
to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 825d and Part 45 of 
the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR 
Part 45.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23982 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID SCOTT LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:07-cr-00043-CMC-4)

Submitted: July 27,2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Scott Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Scott Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Lee has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
§ 19.205 Authority and scope; waiver. ( a ) *In general.* This subpart implements section 203 of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (5 U.S.C. 504). EAJA provides for the award of attorney fees and other expenses to eligible individuals and entities that are parties in certain administrative proceedings (adversary adjudications) before agencies of the Government of the United States. An eligible party may receive an award when it prevails over an agency unless the agency's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. However, no presumption under this subpart arises that the agency's position was not substantially justified because the agency did not prevail.
( b ) *Scope.* The types of adversary adjudications covered by this subpart are those proceedings listed in §§ 19.1, 19.110, 19.120, 19.190, 19.230, and 19.241.
( c ) *Waiver.* After reasonable notice to the parties, the presiding officer or the OCC may waive, for good cause shown, any provision contained in this subpart as long as the waiver is consistent with the terms and purpose of EAJA.
#### § 1291.41 Eligible applicants.

A Bank shall accept applications for AHP direct subsidy under its Homeownership Set-Aside Programs only from institutions that are members of the Bank at the time the application is submitted to the Bank.
AFS-12-514-E 

October 12, 2012 

 

 Exemption No. 8845C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26748 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Corporate Aviation Education Director 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8845, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Training Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (Aviation 

Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate LQPT037K) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 8845, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test 

to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but 

before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8845, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C.§§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8845, as amended, to 

February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8845 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8845. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                        5
<CIK>                                                   0000794927
<NAME>                     CANTERBURY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1

<S>                                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<CASH>                                                     734,399
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,333,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         4,339,489
<PP&E>                                                   6,438,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                         (4,437,058)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          25,762,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    4,598,122
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     8,698
<OTHER-SE>                                              18,022,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            25,762,653
<SALES>                                                  9,547,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         9,547,966
<CGS>                                                    5,177,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            4,060,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           544,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         275,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            579,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                                60,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        518,579
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               518,579
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  .07


</TABLE>