alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022297EN.01000501.xml

| 4.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/5

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2022/C 297/04)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | 6 April 2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 88307 |
| Decision No | 068/22/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | State aid measures in favour of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) |
| Legal basis | The re-registration tax measure is laid down in Parliament’s decision concerning re-registration tax
  The favourable income tax calculation is laid down in the Norwegian Tax Act of 26 March 1999 No 14 and the Ministry’s supplementing Regulation of 19 November 1999 No 1158 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental aid |
| Form of aid | Tax rate reduction (re-registration tax); tax base reduction (favourable income tax calculation) |
| Budget | Unaltered |
| Intensity | Re-registration tax: 75 %
  Favourable income tax calculation: 20 % |
| Duration | Until 31 December 2023 for the re-registration tax measure. No limitation in time for the favourable income tax calculation |
| Economic sectors | Manufacture of motor vehicles |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Ministry of Finance |
| P.O.Box 8008 Dep |
| N-0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

6 April 2022

Case No

88307

Decision No

068/22/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

State aid measures in favour of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)

Legal basis

The re-registration tax measure is laid down in Parliament’s decision concerning re-registration tax

The favourable income tax calculation is laid down in the Norwegian Tax Act of 26 March 1999 No 14 and the Ministry’s supplementing Regulation of 19 November 1999 No 1158

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental aid

Form of aid

Tax rate reduction (re-registration tax); tax base reduction (favourable income tax calculation)

Budget

Unaltered

Intensity

Re-registration tax: 75 %

Favourable income tax calculation: 20 %

Duration

Until 31 December 2023 for the re-registration tax measure. No limitation in time for the favourable income tax calculation

Economic sectors

Manufacture of motor vehicles

Name and address of the granting authority

The Ministry of Finance

P.O.Box 8008 Dep

N-0030 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 Internet:

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

---
#### § 34.47 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.
§ 252.162 Covered IHC long-term debt requirement. ( a ) *Covered IHC long-term debt requirement.* A Covered IHC must have an outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount that is no less than the amount equal to the greatest of: ( 1 ) 6 percent of the Covered IHC's total risk-weighted assets;
( 2 ) If the Covered IHC is required to maintain a minimum supplementary leverage ratio, 2.5 percent of the Covered IHC's total leverage exposure; and
( 3 ) 3.5 percent of the Covered IHC's average total consolidated assets.
( b ) *Outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount.* ( 1 ) A Covered IHC's outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount is the sum of: ( i ) One hundred (100) percent of the amount due to be paid of unpaid principal of the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC in greater than or equal to 730 days (two years); and
( ii ) Fifty (50) percent of the amount due to be paid of unpaid principal of the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC in greater than or equal to 365 days (one year) and less than 730 days (two years); and
( iii ) Zero (0) percent of the amount due to be paid of unpaid principal of the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt securities issued by the Covered IHC in less than 365 days (one year).
( 2 ) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the date on which principal is due to be paid on an outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt security is calculated from the earlier of: ( i ) The date on which payment of principal is required under the terms governing the instrument, without respect to any right of the holder to accelerate payment of principal; and
( ii ) The date the holder of the instrument first has the contractual right to request or require payment of the amount of principal, provided that, with respect to a right that is exercisable on one or more dates that are specified in the instrument only on the occurrence of an event (other than an event of a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding of the Covered IHC, or a failure of the Covered IHC to pay principal or interest on the instrument when due), the date for the outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt security under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii) will be calculated as if the event has occurred.
( 3 ) After notice and response proceedings consistent with 12 CFR part 263, subpart E, the Board may order a Covered IHC to exclude from its outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount any debt security with one or more features that would significantly impair the ability of such debt security to take losses.
( c ) *Redemption and repurchase.* Without the prior approval of the Board, a Covered IHC may not redeem or repurchase any outstanding eligible Covered IHC debt security if, immediately after the redemption or repurchase, the Covered IHC would not have an outstanding eligible Covered IHC long-term debt amount that is sufficient to meet its Covered IHC long-term debt requirement under paragraph (a) of this section.
[82 FR 8311, Jan. 24, 2017, as amended at 86 FR 738, Jan. 6, 2021]
#### § 336.6 Verification of compliance.

The FDIC's Division of Administration shall order appropriate investigations as authorized by 12 U.S.C. 1819 and 1822 on newly appointed employees, either prior to or following appointment, to verify compliance with the minimum standards listed under § 336.4(a)(1) through (4).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,127
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 16,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                     159
<INVENTORY>                                   22,707
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              44,212
<PP&E>                                        39,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                22,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                64,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13,631
<BONDS>                                       13,408
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          74
<OTHER-SE>                                    35,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  64,382
<SALES>                                      102,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             102,279
<CGS>                                         82,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                100,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  718
<INCOME-TAX>                                     380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              338
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.04



</TABLE>
DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE.

[Lucas Circuit Court,

April Term, 1894.]

Bentley, Scribner and Haynes, JJ.

#### L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Ann Eagan, Admr.

Where Employee Contributed to his Own Death.

Where the weight of the evidence, in a suit for death of a railway employee, showed that the injury occurred where there were no switches or frogs, where the decedent had no duties to perform, and by his stepping thoughtlessly in front of a moving engine, the railroad company can not be held.

Bentley, J.

The plaintiff below recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in error, here, -for $500 for causing the death of Daniel H. Eagan, by negligence on the 4th day of May, 1890. The accident occurred in the company’s yards at Air Line junction where said Eagan was employed as a switch-tender, his left leg between the ankle and knee being run over by an engine and crushed; he died from the shock. The petition charges that he caught his foot in an unblocked switch or frog, and that an engine negligently moving without ringing of its bell, or giving any signal, ran against and over him.

Two former trials had resulted in a disagreement of the jury.

The evidence showed that his foot was uninjured, but that his leg above the ankle was so completely crushed that it must have been actually run over by the engine wheel. The only evidence, tending to show that his foot was caught was that it was caught between the south rail of the west bound main track and the extreme end of the movable switch rail south of said main track rail, which space, the uncontradicted evidence showed, could not be blocked. The character of the injury showed that it could not have been received from that cause and the manifest weight of the evidence showed that the injury occurred where there were ho switches or frogs, at a point where the decedent had no duties to perform, and by his thoughtlessly stepping one foot between the tracks, immediately in front of a moving engine whose bell was then ringing.

Judgment reversed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0454. ERIC LUKE v. BURKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2013V0012
Exhibit 23.0






      Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



The Stockholders and the
 Board of Directors
 Haven Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Nos. 333-79740, No. 333-85056, 333-07083 and No. 333-
20823 on Forms S-8 and the Registration Statement No. 333-21129 on
Form S-3 of Haven Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 28,
1999, relating to the consolidated statements of financial
condition of Haven Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,
and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report is
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Haven Bancorp, Inc.


Melville, New York
March 30, 1999
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133825 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ANTONIO L. THOMAS and ANTONIO L. Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, THOMAS ASSOCIATED, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 133825 

 COA: 273283 
 Wayne CC: 02-220633-CZ

LA-VAN HAWKINS and URBAN CITY 

FOODS, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

MELVIN BUTCH HOLLOWELL, 

Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 22, 2008 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>                                                 U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                             JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                               FEB-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            1
<CASH>                                                     19,894
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              36,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                332,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0
<PP&E>                                                     2,382
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             421,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    244,041
<COMMON>                                                   71
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 125,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               421,457
<SALES>                                                    405,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           425,645
<CGS>                                                      330,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         3,903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            29,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                               12,858
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        16,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            (859)
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                               15,840
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              1.86



</TABLE>
#### § 1777.12 Other supervisory action.

Notwithstanding the pendency or completion of one or more supervisory responses described in § 1777.11, OFHEO may at any time undertake additional supervisory steps and actions in the form of any informal or formal supervisory tool available to OFHEO under the 1992 Act, including, but not limited to, issuing guidance or directives under section 1313 (12 U.S.C. 4513), requiring reports under section 1314 (12 U.S.C. 4514), conducting other examinations under section 1317 (12 U.S.C. 4517), issuing discretionary reclassification under section 1364 (12 U.S.C. 4614), initiating discretionary action under section 1366(b) (12 U.S.C. 4616(b)), appointing a conservator under section 1369(a) (12 U.S.C. 4619(a)), or initiating administrative enforcement action under sections 1371, 1372, and 1376 (12 U.S.C. 4631, 4632 and 4636). In addition, OFHEO may take any such steps or actions with respect to an Enterprise that fails to make a submission or comply with a directive as required by § 1777.11, or to address an Enterprise's failure to implement an appropriate action in response to a supervisory letter or under an action plan under § 1777.11.
#### § 349.12 Capital.

A covered swap entity shall comply with the capital requirements that are applicable to the covered swap entity under part 324 of this chapter.

[80 FR 74912, Nov. 30, 2015]
#### § 337.5 Exemption.

Check guaranty card programs, customer-sponsored credit card programs, and similar arrangements in which a bank undertakes to guarantee the obligations of individuals who are its retail banking deposit customers are exempted from § 337.2: *Provided, however,* That the bank establishes the creditworthiness of the individual before undertaking to guarantee his/her obligations and that any such arrangement to which a bank's principal shareholders, directors, or executive officers are a party be in compliance with applicable provisions of Federal Reserve Regulation O (12 CFR part 215).

[50 FR 10495, Mar. 15, 1985]
§ 3.603 Response to notice. ( a ) A national bank or Federal savings association may respond to the notice by stating why a directive should not be issued and/or by proposing alternative contents for the directive. The response should include any matters which the national bank or Federal savings association would have the OCC consider in deciding whether to issue a directive and/or what the contents of the directive should be. The response may include a plan for achieving the minimum capital ratios applicable to the national bank or Federal savings association. The response must be in writing and delivered to the designated OCC official within 30 days after the date on which the national bank or Federal savings association received the notice. The OCC may shorten the 30-day time period: ( 1 ) When, in the opinion of the OCC, the condition of the national bank or Federal savings association so requires, provided that the national bank or Federal savings association shall be informed promptly of the new time period;
( 2 ) With the consent of the national bank or Federal savings association; or
( 3 ) When the national bank or Federal savings association already has advised the OCC that it cannot or will not achieve its applicable minimum capital ratios.
( b ) In its discretion, the OCC may extend the time period for good cause.
( c ) Failure to respond within 30 days or such other time period as may be specified by the OCC shall constitute a waiver of any objections to the proposed directive.
§ 1234.21 Additional exemptions. ( a ) *Securitization transactions.* The federal agencies with rulewriting authority under section 15G(b) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-11(b)) with respect to the type of assets involved may jointly provide a total or partial exemption of any securitization transaction as such agencies determine may be appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors.
( b ) *Exceptions, exemptions, and adjustments.* The Federal banking agencies and the Commission, in consultation with the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, may jointly adopt or issue exemptions, exceptions or adjustments to the requirements of this part, including exemptions, exceptions or adjustments for classes of institutions or assets in accordance with section 15G(e) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-11(e)).
# C_2023094EN.01000101.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2023/C 94/01)

Last publication

OJ C 83, 6.3.2023

Past publications

OJ C 71, 27.2.2023

OJ C 63, 20.2.2023

OJ C 54, 13.2.2023

OJ C 45, 6.2.2023

OJ C 35, 30.1.2023

OJ C 24, 23.1.2023

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 10
PMN: 14-0173 0174, 0175, 0176, 0177

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 10
# Hamptons	Aerial	Photography
Mr.	Sean	Finnerty 5	Gracewood	Ct. Hampton	Bays,	NY	11946 631

- 988

- 5101 sfinnerty2@gmail.com

I,	Sean	Finnerty,	owner	of	Hamptons	Aerial	Photography,	am	petitioning	the	Federal Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	for	an	exemption	from	part	21	Subpart	H	and	§§ 61.113(a)	and	(b);	61.23(a),	91.109,	91.121,	91.151(a),	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)	an d	(2),	and	91.417(a)	and	(b)	of	Title	14,	Code	of	Federal	Regulations (14	CFR).			This	exemption	would be granted	to	operate	a	DJI	Inspire	1	+	unmanned aircraft	system	(UAS)	to	conduct	aerial	photography	and	videography	for homeowners,	realtors,	home	build ers,	home	contractors,	and/or	home	inspectors for	real	estate	marketing	and	inspections	of	home	exteriors	in	addition	to	other photography	and	videography	for	hire	projects	which	may	include	but	not	limited	to weddings,	birthday	parties,	and	private	events

. A	granted	exemption	would	allow Hamptons	Aerial	Photography	to	safely	provide	a	service	to	local	individuals	and businesses	which	currently	is	not	widely	available. The	owner	ope rated	DJI	Inspire 1	will	be	operated	in	a rural community environment	which poses	no	imminent safety	risk	to	the	public	or	local	infrastructure.		Additionally,	all	other	Federal Aviation	Administration	re gulations	governing	aircraft	operation and	unmanned aircraft	systems	will	be	adhered	to.		All	pre	flight	safety	and	maintenance procedures will	be	conducted	on	a	regular	basis	as	ou tlined	in	1)	Inspire	1	Training Guide,	Inspire	1	User	Manual,	Inspire	1	Guide,	and	Academy	of	Model	Aeronautics (AMA)	Safety	Code.
§ 263.37 Post-hearing filings. ( a ) *Proposed findings and conclusions and supporting briefs.* ( 1 ) Using the same method of service for each party, the ALJ will serve notice upon each party that the certified transcript, together with all hearing exhibits and exhibits introduced but not admitted into evidence at the hearing, has been filed. Any party may file with the ALJ proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order within 30 days following service of this notice by the ALJ or within such longer period as may be ordered by the ALJ.
( 2 ) Proposed findings and conclusions must be supported by citation to any relevant authorities and by page references to any relevant portions of the record. A post-hearing brief may be filed in support of proposed findings and conclusions, either as part of the same document or in a separate document. Any party who fails to file timely with the ALJ any proposed finding or conclusion is deemed to have waived the right to raise in any subsequent filing or submission any issue not addressed in such party's proposed finding or conclusion.
( b ) *Reply briefs.* Reply briefs may be filed within 15 days after the date on which the parties' proposed findings, conclusions, and order are due. Reply briefs must be strictly limited to responding to new matters, issues, or arguments raised in another party's papers. A party who has not filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or a post-hearing brief may not file a reply brief.
( c ) *Simultaneous filing required.* The ALJ will not order the filing by any party of any brief or reply brief in advance of the other party's filing of its brief.