alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020316EN.01000601.xml

| 24.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/6

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 316/06)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | 18 June 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 090 |
| Decision No | 060/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | Whole territory of Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 – Portfolio guarantee on trade credit insurance |
| Legal basis | Parliamentary resolution (‘stortingsvedtak’) appropriating the overall framework for the guarantee scheme (yet to be adopted) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Ensure a functioning trade credit insurance market in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic |
| Form of aid | Guarantees |
| Budget | NOK 19,820 billion in guarantees |
| Duration | Until 31 December 2020 |
| Economic sectors | Trade credit insurance |
| Name and address of the granting authority | GIEK





  Postboks 1763 Vika |
| N-0122 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

18 June 2020

Case No

85 090

Decision No

060/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Region

Whole territory of Norway

Title

COVID-19 – Portfolio guarantee on trade credit insurance

Legal basis

Parliamentary resolution (‘stortingsvedtak’) appropriating the overall framework for the guarantee scheme (yet to be adopted)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Ensure a functioning trade credit insurance market in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic

Form of aid

Guarantees

Budget

NOK 19,820 billion in guarantees

Duration

Until 31 December 2020

Economic sectors

Trade credit insurance

Name and address of the granting authority

GIEK

Postboks 1763 Vika

N-0122 Oslo

NORWAY

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

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

---
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 20 1 5 - 4213 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 20 1 5 - CE - 0 22 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
# C_2023255EN.01000301.xml

| 20.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 July 2023

(2023/C 255/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1222 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,76 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4507 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86918 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,4760 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9628 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 146,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,2660 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,927 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 375,00 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4508 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9440 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 30,2231 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6582 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4795 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7612 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7949 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4875 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 420,32 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,1074 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1014 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 830,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0976 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,272 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,329 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3996 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8119 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 92,1095 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1222

JPY

Japanese yen

156,76

DKK

Danish krone

7,4507

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86918

SEK

Swedish krona

11,4760

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9628

ISK

Iceland króna

146,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,2660

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,927

HUF

Hungarian forint

375,00

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4508

RON

Romanian leu

4,9440

TRY

Turkish lira

30,2231

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6582

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4795

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7612

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7949

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4875

KRW

South Korean won

1 420,32

ZAR

South African rand

20,1074

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1014

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 830,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0976

PHP

Philippine peso

61,272

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,329

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3996

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8119

INR

Indian rupee

92,1095

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO CRUZ-AZPETIA, AKA

Rigoberto Azpetia-Cruz,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71162

Agency No. A200-199-152

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Cruz-Azpetia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review de novo constitutional

FILED

DEC 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th

Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Cruz-Azpetia failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,

930 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Cruz-Azpetia’s contentions that the BIA violated due process or erred by

allegedly failing to properly apply the correct legal standard in its hardship

analysis, neglecting relevant precedent, or ignoring arguments are not supported by

the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA need

not “write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and quotation marks

omitted)); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)

(concluding that the BIA applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites

and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process

claim).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Azpetia’s remaining

contentions regarding good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1);

2 15-71162
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a

contention when another dispositive determination has been made).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 15-71162
NOTIFICATION OF LATE RECORD
REQUEST FOR EXTENSTION

Court of Appeals Number: 08-18-00063-CR Trial Court Style: 4716 I am the court reporter respons ible for preparing the Reporter ’s Record in the above-referenced appeal. The Reporter’s Record is due on May 18, 2018. Appellant has failed to provide a designation of record to the court reporter. Appellant has failed to make fina ncial arrangements (no inquiry has been made as to the cost, no motion a nd order for reporter to prepar e the record has been received). At this time I am requesting an extension until I receive a de signation of record and payment or a motion a nd order to prepare the record. Upon receipt of a designation of record and upon co mpletion of financial arrangem ents, I would request 30 days to prepare the Reporter’s Record. I, Diane Pattillo, Official Reporter for the 109 th Judicial District Court, certify that a copy of this Notifi cation of Late Record and Req uest for Extension has been served by first-class mail, e-mail, or hand delivered to the parties to the judgment or order being appealed. Respectfully subm itted,

Date: May 18, 2018 /s/Diane Pattillo Diane Pa ttillo, CSR 1951 Expiration Date: 12/31/2016 Court Reporter, 109 th Judicial District 201 N. Main, Room 201 Andrews, Texas 79714 432-524-1480

Filed with 8 COA on 5-18-2018 e-mailed: artieaguilar@gmail.com tmason@co.andrews.tx.us on 5-18-2018
# C_2013029EN.01000801.xml

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 8 October 2012

in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11

Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 29/09

In Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11, Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 8 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
§ 252.13 Applicability. ( a ) *Scope* — ( 1 ) *Applicability.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to any state member bank with average total consolidated assets of greater than $250 billion.
( 2 ) *Ongoing applicability.* A state member bank (including any successor company) that is subject to any requirement in this subpart shall remain subject to any such requirement unless and until its total consolidated assets fall below $250 billion for each of four consecutive quarters, effective on the as-of date of the fourth consecutive Call Report.
( b ) *Transition period.* ( 1 ) A state member bank that exceeds the asset threshold for the first time on or before September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the state member bank becomes subject to this subpart, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
( 2 ) A state member bank that exceeds the asset threshold for the first time after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the third year after the state member bank becomes subject to this subpart, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
[84 FR 59100, Nov. 1, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24136]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission


F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 7-09

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters 
specified, as follows:
    Date and Time: Friday, October 16, 2009, at 11 a.m.
    Subject Matter: Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against 
Albania and Libya.
    Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 
Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-
6975.

Mauricio J. Tamargo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. E9-24136 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4401-BA-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 20, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00038

- CV

Drax Marlow, Appellant

v.

Christian Nash and Tairus, LLC, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYE AR, PEMBERTON AND RO SE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT ’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS DAY came to be submitted appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal in the above cause,

and the Court having fully considered said motion is of the opinion that same sh ould be granted

.

IT IS THEREFORE ordered that said motion is granted and that the appeal is dismissed. It is

FURTHER ordered that the appellant p ay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and

the court below

, and that this decision be certi fied below for observance.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2943

To waive, for grants awarded in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, certain restrictions on the hiring or rehiring of career law enforcement officers under 

the COPS grant program under Part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control 

and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2003

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To waive, for grants awarded in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 

certain restrictions on the hiring or rehiring of career 

law enforcement officers under the COPS grant program 

under Part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Responders En5 hancement Act’’. 
2

•HR 2943 IH 

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY WAIVER OF MATCHING FUNDS AND IN2 CREASE IN MAXIMUM GRANT FOR HIRING 

3 COSTS. 

4 (a) WAIVER OF MATCHING FUNDS.—Subsections (e) 

5 and (i) of section 1701 of part Q of title I of the Omnibus 

6 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

7 3796dd) shall not apply to a covered COPS grant. 

8 (b) INCREASE IN MAXIMUM GRANT FOR HIRING

9 COSTS.—Subsection (c) of section 1704 of such part (42 

10 U.S.C. 3796dd–3) shall not apply to a covered COPS 

11 grant. Funding provided under a covered COPS grant for 

12 hiring or rehiring a career law enforcement officer may 

13 not exceed $150,000, unless the Attorney General grants 

14 a waiver from this limitation. 

15 (c) WAIVER OF RETENTION REQUIREMENT.—Para16 graph (8) of section 1702(c) of such part (42 U.S.C. 

17 3796dd–1) shall not apply to a covered COPS grant. The 

18 Attorney General shall award covered COPS grants with19 out regard to whether the applicant has any plans de20 scribed in that paragraph. 

21 (d) COVERED COPS GRANT.—In this section, the 

22 term ‘‘covered COPS grant’’ means a grant under part 

23 Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

24 Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.) that is awarded 
3

•HR 2943 IH 

1 in fiscal year 2004 or 2005, regardless of the period for 

2 which the grant is made.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1073

___________________________

Timothy James Walter

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: September 24, 2020

Filed: October 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy James Walter appeals a district court1 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. We agree that substantial evidence on the record as a

1The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
whole supports the Commissioner’s adverse decision. See Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926

F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review). Specifically, we find no basis in

the extensive medical records for finding that any conditions other than those

identified by the administrative law judge (ALJ) were severe impairments. See Kirby

v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir. 2007) (if impairment has no more than minimal

impact on claimant’s ability to work, it is not severe). We further find the ALJ’s

determination that Walter’s subjective complaints were not entirely credible

supported by substantial evidence, see Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 770-71 (8th Cir.

2019) (ALJ may discount subjective complaints if record as whole is inconsistent

with claimant’s testimony; because ALJ is in better position to gauge credibility and

resolve conflicting evidence, this court will not substitute its opinion for ALJ’s); and

we find no merit to Walter’s various challenges to the ALJ’s residual functional

capacity (RFC) findings, see Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013)

(ALJ determines RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records,

observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of his

limitations); Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012) (burden of

persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). Finally,

we find no abuse of discretion in the ALJ’s decision not to issue a subpoena to a

physical therapist who conducted a functional capacity evaluation. See Passmore v.

Astrue, 533 F.3d 658, 661-66 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). The judgment is

affirmed.2

______________________________

2Because Walter did not raise his Appointments Clause argument in the proceedings

before the Commissioner, we decline to address it on appeal from the district court’s

decision. See Davis v. Saul, 963 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July

29, 2020).

-2-
#### § 263.30 Partial summary disposition.

If the ALJ determines that a party is entitled to summary disposition as to certain claims only, the ALJ will defer submitting a recommended decision as to those claims. A hearing on the remaining issues must be ordered. Those claims for which the ALJ has determined that summary disposition is warranted will be addressed in the recommended decision filed at the conclusion of the hearing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40447

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DEAMOND LAROCCA MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-1516-1

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Deamond Larocca Mitchell appeals his conviction for transporting an

alien unlawfully in the United States. He argues that the evidence was

insufficient to support his conviction insofar as it failed to establish that he

knowingly transported, or attempted to transport, an undocumented alien. 

Mitchell did not renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of

the evidence. Therefore, our review of the sufficiency issue is “limited to

determining whether . . . the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.”

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 7, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40447

2

United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882, 885 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). The

following evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Mitchell

knew his trailer contained illegal aliens: (1) he parked his tractor-trailer in a

dimly lit area where 18-wheeler parking was prohibited; (2) he did not secure his

trailer doors when he allegedly went to the bathroom in the theater and then

went in search of body lotion; (3) his allegation that he went in search of lotion

was not credible given that the shopping mall did not contain a Dollar General

Store; (4) he was observed pacing back and forth behind the trailer and talking

on a two-way radio that he purportedly found in his hotel room; (5) he had to

physically enter the trailer around the very time the aliens were being loaded

inside to perform the temperature checks; and (6) the three testifying aliens

were independently led to his truck within a relatively short period of time,

suggesting that Mitchell was knowingly involved in the offense. Consequently,

the record contains indirect evidence pointing to his guilty knowledge.

AFFIRMED.