alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011314EN.01000301.xml

| 27.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/3

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2011/C 314/03

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 18 July 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 70030 |
| Decision number | : | 249/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Name of the beneficiary | : | Sway Turbine AS |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Direct grant |
| Budget | : | NOK 137,2 million |
| Intensity | : | 57,8 % |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Enova SF |
| Professor Borchsgt. 2 |
| 7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

18 July 2011

Case number

:

70030

Decision number

:

249/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Name of the beneficiary

:

Sway Turbine AS

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

:

Individual aid

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

:

Direct grant

Budget

:

NOK 137,2 million

Intensity

:

57,8 %

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Enova SF

Professor Borchsgt. 2

7030 Trondheim

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/

---
# C_2020343EN.01001801.xml

| 15.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/18

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 343/14)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | 25 May 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 210 |
| Decision No | 048/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | Prolongation of COVID-19 Guarantee scheme |
| Legal basis | Forskrift om endring i forskrift 27. mars 2020 nr. 490 til lov om statlig garantiordning for lån til små og mellomstore bedrifter, FOR-2020-03-27-490 |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Ensure access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Form of aid | Public guarantees |
| Budget | NOK 50 billion (for the scheme as amended) |
| Duration | 26 March 2020 – 31 December 2020 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | GIEK, The Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency |
| Pb 1763 Vika |
| N-0122 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

25 May 2020

Case No

85 210

Decision No

048/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

Prolongation of COVID-19 Guarantee scheme

Legal basis

Forskrift om endring i forskrift 27. mars 2020 nr. 490 til lov om statlig garantiordning for lån til små og mellomstore bedrifter, FOR-2020-03-27-490

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Ensure access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak

Form of aid

Public guarantees

Budget

NOK 50 billion (for the scheme as amended)

Duration

26 March 2020 – 31 December 2020

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

GIEK, The Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency

Pb 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/.

---
Edwards, Brenda

From: Edwards, Brenda

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:14 AM

Subject: Notice of Public Meeting for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps - May 1, 2008

Page 1 of 1

4/9/2008

The Department of Energy (DOE) will hold an informal public meeting that will cover the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NOPR) packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps. The public 

meeting will begin on Thursday, May 1, 2008, at DOE in the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Room 1E-245, Washington, DC 20585 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. The agenda for the 

public meeting will cover the NOPR and technical analysis supporting the NOPR. 

Please note that DOE must receive requests to speak at the public meeting before 4:00 p.m., April 21, 

2008. Foreign nationals visiting DOE headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. If 

you are a foreign national and wish to attend this meeting, please inform DOE of this fact by contacting 

Brenda Edwards as soon as possible at (202) 586-2945. It takes a significant amount of effort to screen 

foreign nationals so that they may enter through security. Wes Anderson 

The NOPR was issued by the Secretary on March 28, 2008 and may be viewed and downloaded from the 

DOE webpage at 

http://erendev.nrel.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/packaged_ac_hp.html In addition to the 

links to the PDF of the NOPR, you will find links to the NOPR Analytical Spreadsheet Tools and Technical 

Support Document (TSD). 

Wes Anderson

Mechanical Engineer

Building Technologies Program

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

U- S. Department of Energy

202-586-7335

 

 

 

 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 05
pet_smeltzer@nema.org

harvey_sachs@aceee.org

kyl_pitsor@nema.org

Michael.McCabe@ee.doe.gov

hmisuriello@ase.org

Hnewsome@FTC.gov

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov

kyl_pitsor@nema.org

MRivest@navigantconsulting.com

MScholand@navigantconsulting.com

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov

Dain.Hansen@nema.org

snadel@aceee.org

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov

PublicSolutions@earthlink.net

Ronald.Lewis@ee.doe.gov

michael.scott@pnl.gov

kamrane@ari.org

wes.anderson@ee.doe.gov

Ashley.Armstrong@NavigantConsulting.com

brice.bowley@ge.com

mikeb@ptacs.com

Adelaski1@aol.com

jeff.empie@mcquay.com

dgoldstein@nrdc.org

tom.guffey@amanahvac.com

jill.hootman@trane.com

EARL.F.JONES@GE.COM

pkendrick@friedrich.com

kkennedy@nrdc.org

john.kingsbury@goodmanmfg.com

bill.kleftis@ecrinternational.com

bing.lui@pnl.gov

david.markusz@carrier.utc.com

mmartin@energy.state.ca.us

jim.mckallip@mcquay.com

cmiro@ashrae.org

misuriello@ase.org

steven_nadel@aceee.org

patlovichdt@trane.com

tom.phillips@carrier.utc.com

srosenstock@eei.org

drossin@navigantconsulting.com

hsachs@aceee.org

michael.scott@pnl.gov

sriram.somasundaram@pnl.gov

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 05
maryann.stojkovski@mcquay.com

scotou@ecrinternational.com

twheeler@friedrich.com

robert.whitwell@carrier.utc.com

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 05
42193.

#### WARNER v. JETER.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The amended petition alleges that on June 25, 1959, defendant received from the plaintiff $2,500 for the use of defendant at his request; that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of June 25, 1959; that defendant stated he desired plaintiff to go in with him for the purchase of certain realty; that unknown to plaintiff, the defendant had previously purchased the realty on June 19,1959; that relying on the representations that the .money was to be used for the purchase of the realty, petitioner gave to defendant the sum of $2,500; that on May *710, 1960, defendant conveyed the property to another, but did not tell plaintiff the sale had been consummated nor did the defendant on demand repay the plaintiff the money owed. *Held:*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

Argued September 6, 1966

Decided January 6, 1967.

*Isabel Gates Webster, James W. Hawkins,*for appellant.

*Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Robert J. Castellani,*for appellee.

Liabilities of a bankrupt representing money or property obtained “by false pretenses or false representations” are not released by a discharge in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C.A. § 35 (a) (2). However, a petition alleging an excluded debt and seeking to recover the debt must assert a valid cause of action based on the fraud in order to show that the debt was not released by the discharge. The petition here is defective under Georgia law since it merely implies false promises on the part of. the defendant to sell certain realty in the future and to repay the debt from the proceeds of the future sale. Fraud cannot be predicated upon statements which are promissory in their nature as to future acts. *Jackson v. Brown,*209 Ga. 78 (70 SE2d 756); *Musgrove v. Musgrove,*213 Ga. 610 (100 SE2d 577); *Beach v. Fleming,*214 Ga. 303 (104 SE2d 427); *Shafer v. Carson,*33 Ga. App. 418 (126 SE 735); *Stephens v. Milikin,*35 Ga. App. 287 (133 SE 67); *Crozier v. Provident Life &c. Ins. Co.,*53 Ga. App. 572 (186 SE 719).

*The trial court’s judgment sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition is affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3028 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3028

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to expand the 
        authority of non-Federal interests to levy harbor fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 2003

 Mr. Rohrabacher introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to expand the 
        authority of non-Federal interests to levy harbor fees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 208(a) of 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2236(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or container fees'' after ``tonnage 
        duties or fees'';
            (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
                    (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii) 
                and inserting ``or''; and
                    (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
                    ``(iii) to finance the cost of construction and 
                operation and maintenance of any infrastructure project 
                for a harbor, including an infrastructure project 
                outside the boundaries of the harbor if the project is 
                for transportation to, from, or through the harbor; 
                and''; and
            (3) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``and security'' after 
        ``emergency response''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - - EN

*|*

#

**Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-10/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications) **

*
Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0005 - 0005 *

Judgment of the Court

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-10/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

2011/C 148/05

In Case E-10/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Acts referred to at point 1 and at point 1, indent 2, of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications, each as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

2. orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

--------------------------------------------------
427 A.2d 241

#### Wargo, Appellant, v. Wargo.

Argued November 13, 1979.

Stephen J. Mirizio, for appellant;

B. Albert Bertocchi, for appellee.

*616Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

Decree affirmed.
#### § 323.7 Enforcement.

Institutions and institution-affiliated parties, including staff appraisers and fee appraisers, may be subject to removal and/or prohibition orders, cease and desist orders, and the imposition of civil money penalties pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1811 *et seq.,* as amended, or other applicable law.
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.174 What aggregate thresholds apply to merchant banking investments? ( a ) *In general.* A financial holding company may not, without Board approval, directly or indirectly acquire any additional shares, assets or ownership interests under this subpart or make any additional capital contribution to any company the shares, assets or ownership interests of which are held by the financial holding company under this subpart if the aggregate carrying value of all merchant banking investments held by the financial holding company under this subpart exceeds: ( 1 ) 30 percent of the Tier 1 capital of the financial holding company; or
( 2 ) After excluding interests in private equity funds, 20 percent of the Tier 1 capital of the financial holding company.
( b ) *How do these thresholds apply to a private equity fund?* Paragraph (a) of this section applies to the interest acquired or controlled by the financial holding company under this subpart in a private equity fund. Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any interest in a company held by a private equity fund or to any interest held by a person that is not affiliated with the financial holding company.
( c ) *How long do these thresholds remain in effect?* This § 225.174 shall cease to be effective on the date that a final rule issued by the Board that specifically addresses the appropriate regulatory capital treatment of merchant banking investments becomes effective.
( d ) *Qualifying community banking organizations.* For purposes of this section, a financial holding company that is a qualifying community banking organization (as defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject to the community bank leverage ratio framework (as defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) calculates its Tier 1 capital (as defined in § 217.2 of this chapter) in accordance with § 217.12(b) of this chapter.
[Reg. Y, 66 FR 8484, Jan. 31, 2001, as amended at 84 FR 61801, Nov. 13, 2019]
# Official Journal C 438/28 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 438 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6428 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 438

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6428 October 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 438/01 | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors – Annual accounts of the European Development Fund 2020 | 1 |
| 2021/C 438/02 | The ECA’s statement of assurance on the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th EDFs to the European Parliament and the Council – independent auditor’s report | 163 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 438/01

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors – Annual accounts of the European Development Fund 2020

1

2021/C 438/02

The ECA’s statement of assurance on the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th EDFs to the European Parliament and the Council – independent auditor’s report

163

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### § 313.55 Salary adjustments.

Any negative adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's election of coverage, or a change in coverage, under a federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay shall not be considered collection of a “debt” for the purposes of this section if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less. In such cases, the FDIC shall not apply this subpart C, but will provide a clear and concise statement in the employee's earnings statement advising the employee of the previous overpayment at the time the adjustment is made.
<PAGE>


                                                              Exhibit 10.16.1


                      AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE April 16, 1996
("the Amendment") is made and entered into this 1st day of August, 2000 by
and between SeraCare, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (referred herein as the
"Corporation") and Sam Anderson (the "Contractor").

WHEREAS, the Corporation previously entered into a consulting agreement
effective on April 16, 1996 (the "Consulting Agreement");

AND WHEREAS, on January 29, 1998 the Corporation previously extended the
Consulting Agreement for three years through April 15, 2002;

AND WHEREAS, the Corporation hereby wishes to amend the Consulting Agreement
again as specified herein;

AND WHEREAS, the Contractor wishes to have the Consulting Agreement amended as
specified herein;

Now Therefore, the following amendment to the Consulting Agreement is hereby
agreed to by the Corporation:

     1.   The consulting fee payable to Mr. Sam Anderson is hereby increased
          to $70,000. This increase is in lieu of any cash directors fees to
          which Mr. Anderson is or may become entitled to as a director of
          SeraCare, Inc.


All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Consulting Agreement shall
remain effective throughout the extended term of this Amendment.


SERACARE, INC.

/s/ Jerry L. Burdick
-------------------------------
Jerry L. Burdick
Executive Vice President & CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                         614,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,361,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                   365,830
<INVENTORY>                                 10,119,427
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,707,959
<PP&E>                                      12,253,805
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,153,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,844,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,902,598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,490
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,403,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,844,850
<SALES>                                     32,979,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,979,964
<CGS>                                       20,266,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,486,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (138,426)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             187,591
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (367,977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (153,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (214,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (214,977)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
§ 263.19 Answer. ( a ) *When.* Within 20 days of service of the notice, respondent must file an answer as designated in the notice. In a civil money penalty proceeding, respondent must also file a request for a hearing within 20 days of service of the notice.
( b ) *Content of answer.* An answer must specifically respond to each paragraph or allegation of fact contained in the notice and must admit, deny, or state that the respondent lacks sufficient information to admit or deny each allegation of fact. A statement of lack of information has the effect of a denial. Denials must fairly meet the substance of each allegation of fact denied; general denials are not permitted. When a respondent denies part of an allegation, that part must be denied and the remainder specifically admitted. Any allegation of fact in the notice which is not denied in the answer is deemed admitted for purposes of the proceeding. A respondent is not required to respond to the portion of a notice that constitutes the prayer for relief, or proposed order. The answer must set forth affirmative defenses, if any, asserted by the respondent.
( c ) *Default* — ( 1 ) *Effect of failure to answer.* Failure of a respondent to file an answer required by this section within the time provided constitutes a waiver of the respondent's right to appear and contest the allegations in the notice. If no timely answer is filed, Enforcement Counsel may file a motion for entry of an order of default. Upon a finding that no good cause has been shown for the failure to file a timely answer, the ALJ will file with the Board a recommended decision containing the findings and the relief sought in the notice. Any final order issued by the Board based upon a respondent's failure to answer is deemed to be an order issued upon consent.
( 2 ) *Effect of failure to request a hearing in civil money penalty proceedings.* If respondent fails to request a hearing as required by law within the time provided, the notice of assessment constitutes a final and unappealable order of the Board without further action by the ALJ.