alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014217EN.01001201.xml

| 10.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2014/C 217/08)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 19 March 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 74980 |
| Decision number | : | 126/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | NCE Subsea Innovation Cluster |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid for cluster animation |
| Objective | : | Promotion of innovation |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | Overall budget: NOK 60 million |
| Duration | : | Until July 2016 |
| Economic sectors | : | Equipment for subsea oil and gas production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Innovation Norway |
| PO Box 448 |
| Sentrum, Akersgata 13 |
| NO-0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

19 March 2014

Case number

Case number

:

74980

Decision number

Decision number

:

126/14/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

NCE Subsea Innovation Cluster

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

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

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid for cluster animation

Objective

Objective

:

Promotion of innovation

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

Budget

:

Overall budget: NOK 60 million

Duration

Duration

:

Until July 2016

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Equipment for subsea oil and gas production

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Innovation Norway

PO Box 448

Sentrum, Akersgata 13

NO-0104 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/

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00099-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Sue Kurita, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 6, El Paso County, Texas, and 

concludes that Relater’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Order entered December 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01422-CV

No. 05-15-01423-CV

No. 05-15-01424-CV

IN RE EMANUAL DELEON FIELDS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-0154898-N, F-0154899-N, F-0154900-N, 

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
§ 190.3 Operation. ( a ) The provisions of the constitution or law of any state expressly limiting the rate or amount of interest, discount points, finance charges, or other charges which may be charged, taken, received, or reserved shall not apply to any Federally-related loan: ( 1 ) Made after March 31, 1980; and
( 2 ) Secured by a first lien on: ( i ) Residential real property;
( ii ) Stock in a residential cooperative housing corporation when the loan is used to finance the acquisition of such stock; or
( iii ) A residential manufactured home: *Provided,* That the loan so secured contains the consumer safeguards required by § 190.4 of this part;
( b ) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to loans made in any state on or before the date (after April 1, 1980 and prior to April l, 1983) on which the state adopts a law or certifies that the voters of such state have voted in favor of any law, constitutional or otherwise, which states explicitly and by its terms that such state does not want the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section to apply with respect to loans made in such state, except that— ( 1 ) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to any loan which is made after such date pursuant to a commitment therefore which was entered into during the period beginning on April 1, 1980, and ending on the date the state takes such action;
( 2 ) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to any rollover of a loan which loan was made, or committed to be made, during the period beginning on April 1, 1980, and ending on the date the state takes such action, if the mortgage document or loan note provided that the interest rate to the original borrower could be changed through the use of such a rollover; and
( 3 ) At any time after the date of adoption of these regulations, any state may adopt a provision of law placing limitations on discount points or such other charges on any loan described in this part.
( c ) Nothing in this section preempts limitations in state laws on prepayment charges, attorneys' fees, late charges or other provisions designed to protect borrowers.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2851 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2851

 To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to improve the 
    affordability of health insurance coverage for small employers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2003

Mr. Pence (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Paul, Mr. Ryun 
   of Kansas, Mr. Terry, Mr. Doolittle, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
  Crane, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. 
  Otter, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Sensenbrenner) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to improve the 
    affordability of health insurance coverage for small employers.

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

SEC. 1. REPEAL OF GUARANTEED ISSUE IN SMALL GROUP MARKET.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 2711 of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11) is amended by striking ``in a 
State__'' and all that follows through ``must accept for enrollment'' 
and inserting ``in a State must accept for enrollment''.
    (b) Effective Dates.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
        made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to group health 
        plans, and health insurance coverage offered in connection with 
        group health plans, for plan years beginning on or after 
        January 1, 2004 (in this subsection referred to as the 
        ``general effective date'') and also shall apply to portions of 
        plan years occurring on and after such date.
            (2) Treatment of collective bargaining agreements.--In the 
        case of a group health plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more 
        collective bargaining agreements between employee 
        representatives and 1 or more employers ratified before the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the amendments made by this Act 
        shall not apply to plan years beginning before the later of--
                    (A) the date on which the last collective 
                bargaining agreements relating to the plan terminates 
                (determined without regard to any extension thereof 
                agreed to after the date of enactment of this Act); or
                    (B) the general effective date.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), any plan amendment made pursuant to a 
collective bargaining agreement relating to the plan which amends the 
plan solely to conform to any requirement added by this section shall 
not be treated as a termination of such collective bargaining 
agreement.
                                 <all>
```
§ 308.39 Exceptions to recommended decision. ( a ) *Filing exceptions.* Within 30 days after service of the recommended decision, findings, conclusions, and proposed order under § 308.38, a party may file with the Administrative Officer written exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decision, findings, conclusions, or proposed order, to the admission or exclusion of evidence, or to the failure of the ALJ to make a ruling proposed by a party. A supporting brief may be filed at the time the exceptions are filed, either as part of the same document or in a separate document.
( b ) *Effect of failure to file or raise exceptions.* ( 1 ) Failure of a party to file exceptions to those matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section within the time prescribed is deemed a waiver of objection thereto.
( 2 ) No exception need be considered by the Board of Directors if the party taking exception had an opportunity to raise the same objection, issue, or argument before the ALJ and failed to do so.
( c ) *Contents.* ( 1 ) All exceptions and briefs in support of such exceptions must be confined to the particular matters in, or omissions from, the ALJ's recommendations to which that party takes exception.
( 2 ) All exceptions and briefs in support of exceptions must set forth page or paragraph references to the specific parts of the ALJ's recommendations to which exception is taken, the page or paragraph references to those portions of the record relied upon to support each exception, and the legal authority relied upon to support each exception.
§ 191.1 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This part contains regulations issued under section 5 of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, as amended, and under section 341 of the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, Public Law 97-320, 96 Stat. 1469, 1505-1507.
( b ) *Purpose and scope.* The purpose of this permanent preemption of state prohibitions on the exercise of due-on-sale clauses by all lenders, whether Federally- or state-chartered, is to reaffirm the authority of Federal savings associations to enforce due-on-sale clauses, and to confer on other lenders generally comparable authority with respect to the exercise of such clauses. This part applies to all real property loans, and all lenders making such loans, as those terms are defined in § 191.2 of this part.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1
                                                                     -----------

                         AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT
                         -----------------------------

     This Amendment is made and entered into effective as of June 15, 2000, to
the Rights Agreement, dated as of June 15, 2000, (the "Rights Agreement"),
between Vesta Insurance Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and
First Chicago Trust Company, as rights agent (the "Rights Agent").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent desire to restate the definition
of Common Stock under the Rights Agreement to clarify the inclusion therein of
shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of the Company's Series A
Preferred Stock;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements
set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.   The Rights Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 1(g)
thereof in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Section
1(g):

     (g)  "Common Stock" shall mean the common stock, par value $.01 per share,
          of the Company and the shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion
          of the Series A Preferred Stock, except that "Common Stock" when used
          with reference to any Person other than the Company shall mean the
          capital stock of such Person with the greatest voting power, or the
          equity securities or other equity interest having power to control or
          direct the management, of such Person.

     2.   All other provisions of the Rights Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the
Rights Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first above written.


WITNESS:                              VESTA INSURANCE GROUP, INC.



--------------------------------      By: /s/ Donald W. Thornton
                                          -----------------------------
                                      Name:  Donald W. Thornton
                                      Title: Senior Vice President

WITNESS:                              FIRST CHICAGO TRUST COMPANY



--------------------------------      By:  /s/ Michael S. Duncan
                                          -----------------------------
                                      Name:  Michael S. Duncan
                                      Title: Director Corporate Actions
#### Zettie MOSLEY *v.*EL DORADO SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

73-9

493 S.W. 2d 427

Opinion delivered April 30, 1973

*Camp if Thornton,*for appellant.

*Shackelford if Shackelford,*for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This workmen’s compensation claim is for disability and medical expense resulting from an operation to correct a ruptured disc in the claimant’s back. The Commission denied the claim on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her back was accidentally injured in the course of her employment. The circuit court affirmed the Commission’s decision.

The appellant, although recognizing that the substantial evidence rule is controlling, in effect argues that the Commission’s decision is contrary to the preponderance of the proof. We, however, are not concerned with the weight of the evidence: The Commission’s findings have the force of a jury verdict and must be sustained *327if they are supported by substantial evidence. *Herman Wilson Lbr. Co.*v. *Hughes,*245 Ark. 168, 431 S.W. 2d 487 (1968).

There is ample substantial testimony to support the Commission’s denial of the claim. Mrs. Mosley was employed by the appellee school district in the cafeteria kitchen. For some years she had occasionally experienced pain in her back. She testified that on or about February 15, 1969, she injured her back while lifting a box of oranges from a freezer. She was not disabled, however, and continued to work regularly for another month.

On March 14 the claimant again hurt her back at home while she was lifting a load of clothes at her washing machine. She testified that for the first time the pain ran down her leg. Two days later she consulted Dr. Turner, whose case history mentioned only the incident at the washing machine and went on to state: “She has had no previous episodes similar to this.” Mrs. Mosley admits that Dr. Turner must have obtained his information from her. Dr. Turner prepared for Mrs. Mosley an insurance claim in which it was indicated that the injury did not arise out of her employment. Dr. Turner diagnosed the claimant’s condition as a ruptured disc and suggested the possibility of surgery, which was actually done a few days later. Dr. Lester, the surgeon, testified that in his opinion the disc was already weakened and probably ruptured when Mrs. Mosley lifted the load of washing. Dr. Lester stated that the claimant’s work, involving the lifting of from ten to twenty pounds, could also have been an aggravating factor.

Upon the conflicdng substantial evidence in the record the Commission might have allowed the claim or might have denied it. The question here, however, is whether the testimony supports the finding that was made, not whether it would have supported the contrary conclusion. *Reynolds Mining Co.*v. *Raper,*245 Ark. 749, 434 S.W. 2d 304 (1968). Upon the proof in the record we have no choice except to uphold the Commission’s decision.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3141 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3141

To direct the Secretary of the Army to release to Clay County, Georgia, 
 a reversionary interest of the United States requiring the non-profit 
  operation of certain land as a retirement community, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2003

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of the Army to release to Clay County, Georgia, 
 a reversionary interest of the United States requiring the non-profit 
  operation of certain land as a retirement community, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RELEASE TO CLAY COUNTY, GEORGIA, OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST 
              REQUIRING NON-PROFIT OPERATION OF CERTAIN LAND AS A 
              RETIREMENT COMMUNITY.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the 
Army shall release by quitclaim deed to Clay County, Georgia, without 
reimbursement--
            (1) the reversionary interest of the United States in 
        approximately 50 acres of land lying in land lots 263 and 264, 
        Seventh Land District, Clay County, Georgia, executed pursuant 
        to section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
        (104 Stat. 4632), requiring that the land be used and enjoyed 
        solely for the development of a retirement community and 
        operated on a nonprofit basis; and
            (2) any other rights and interests of the United States in 
        the land.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1



Number                                                                   Shares
LMA-                                                                      -0-
THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE                                        Series A
IN CANTON, MASSACHUSETTS, JERSEY                                    Common Stock
CITY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK                                Cusip No. 530718105
CITY, NEW YORK                                                       SEE REVERSE
                                                                     FOR CERTAIN
                                                                     DEFINITIONS


                            LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION

             Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware

                              SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE



This Certifies that ____________________________________ is the owner of
_________________________________ FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF SERIES
A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
(the "Corporation") transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.


Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

                            Liberty Media Corporation
                                [Corporate Seal]

Countersigned and Registered:

  EquiServe Trust Company, N.A.
  Transfer Agent and Registrar

By
-----------------------      -----------------------     -----------------------
Authorized Officer           SECRETARY                   PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
                                                         EXECUTIVE OFFICER
§ 366.13 What is my obligation regarding confidential information? ( a ) Neither you nor any person who performs services on your behalf may use or disclose information obtained from us or a third party in connection with an FDIC contract, unless: ( 1 ) The contract allows or we authorize the use or disclosure;
( 2 ) The information is generally available to the general public; or
( 3 ) We make the information available to the general public.
( b ) The following are examples of when your use of confidential information is inappropriate. These examples are not inclusive. ( 1 ) Disclosing information about an asset, such as internal asset valuations, appraisals or environmental reports, except as part of authorized due diligence materials, to a prospective asset purchaser.
( 2 ) Disclosing a borrower's or guarantor's personal or financial information, such as a financial statement to an unauthorized party.
#### § 308.145 Conduct of investigation.

An investigation shall be initiated only upon issuance of an order by the Board of Directors; or by the General Counsel, the Director of the Division of Risk Management Supervision, the Director of the Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, or their respective designees. The order shall indicate the purpose of the investigation and designate FDIC's representative(s) to direct the conduct of the investigation. Upon application and for good cause shown, the persons who issue the order of investigation may limit, quash, modify, or withdraw it. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, an order of termination of the investigation shall be issued by the persons issuing the order of investigation.

[80 FR 5013, Jan. 30, 2015]